theloniusfleabag

Dear Betsy, Jews aren't a race.

Dear Argus, Perhaps in some areas. Porn was the first business to be financially viable and profitable on the internet. However, some might say that depictions of degredation, rape etc, (ie:turning people into objects, and dehumanizing them) is immoral. Kiddie porn, highly immoral. As for the rest, it is simply voyeurism. As long as it is between consenting adults. ''Upskirt webcams in the mall" should be seen as immoral, as it is a violation of privacy. (Mind you, the complaints might be reversed if it was 'up-kilts'...)

I hate starting a new thread when so many exist about religion, but... http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/Entertainm...rc=e111113A.xml I would say many people feel this way. However, 'banning religion' will never work. Just as 'banning homosexuality' wouldn't work. I'd rather see an all out debate about 'Which is the one true god?" (Or scripture...and the evidence for or against the existence of god, and 'truthfulness' of all religious texts, to be put to a worldwide trial)

Dear Argus, What if one were a pragmatic 'Nietzchean' observer?

Dear kimmy, Indeed, I took English 200 at the University of Calgary, and while Chaucer was good for some chuckles, I really didn't care for the bulk of it. I suppose the problem lies with the definition of 'art'. It is far too broad, in my opinion, and I generally equate tv as akin to the Mexican guy who had seven vials of his own masturbatory spunk in a wheelbarrow (who was given money by the Banff Centre for the Arts). Argus, I suppose that this is the only true 'art', for even Bill Waterston or Berkely Breathed likely started drawing for their own amusement, and their friends told them "Hey, this is great, you should try to sell it." Does selling it make it stop being 'art'? Not really, but it starts having a different purpose. This is why I don't consider tv to be 'art'. , but it does try to influence the mind, and it's ambition is to sell product. Whomever creates the most palatable filler between ads gets the most money.

Dear kimmy, Indeed, and my point isn't that television (or a tv set) can't defy the law of gravity, they just can't defy their sponsors. Rubbish, the bulk of it lowers rather than elevates. There is a saying I saw on a friend's mom's fridge, many years ago..."Great minds discuss ideas, Lesser minds discuss events, And small minds discuss people". TV generally sticks to even beneath these, but will try to sell any of them for the quickest buck possible. It doesn't try to elevate anything, and if it does it is incidental. That is not it's purpose. (given the voyeuristic bent of film, I would imagine sex with her to be akin to 'humping a dusty sack of antlers') Which, I am sure will crush her even further.

Dear kimmy, I don't know, I never heard of it. (I also find Uma Thurman rather repulsive.) "Duh" indeed. Actually, this is what I was alluding to... I am saying that the breaks for TV are not 'just like live theatre breaks'. They are not at all related to 'artistic merit'. I suppose what I am saying is that TV is not 'art', (it is, as Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes") 'television is the opiate of the masses'.

Dear kimmy, Odd, I have never rented a DVD, but I have bought a couple. Not all of them have ads, (or 'trailers' for other shows...perhaps that is the confusion...I don't mean ads for products like Quaker Oats TM, but rather for other DVD's)but some do. In fact, I bought and older Jackie Chan movie called "Project A" (the stuntwork is untouchable) and the ads at the beginning (For some Jet Li movies) can't even be fast-forwarded through. I don't think it is a misunderstanding, I think that this is where August1991 and myself, differ our opinions from yours. True, TV is designed around breaks, but it is more important (for the cable television market) for the ads to air than the shows. Shows come and go, get moved to different time slots, etc, but ads will appear at the top and bottom (and often elsewhere) of every hour, and you can bet on that more than you can expect to see your favourite show appear in it's same time slot tomorrow. Is there 'artistic and intelligent' porn? Perhaps somewhere, but advertisers and producers don't want to take a chance on it. They want what sells, now.

Dear kimmy, Actually, they put the ads at the front. Mostly of comparable products, too, so you are more likely to buy them. They don't put an ad for the DVD of "The story of Tinkie-Winkie and His Magic Bag" at the beginning of "Chopper Chicks in ZombieTown", I'm pretty sure. Nonsense. Set changes for television shows can happen 20 times between commercial breaks. They pause for commercial breaks because they choose to. They make a large chunk of their money from cable subscriptions. This was my big beef, I cannot simply purchase The Discovery Channel or A&E or Showcase by itself, I have to purchase 'basic cable' first and then add channels that I would have liked to have. I complained that I don't watch the rubbish on the lower channels, Seinfeld, or Oprah, Geraldo, or any of that other brainless pap. Yet I have to subsidize it with a basic cable subscription. I might watch the news once a month, but I still pay for all the other crap. (The only reason we even have cable is that we get a 'bundled discount' for internet, digital phone and cable from Shaw. A choice of mine, I suppose, but I wish I could choose what to pay for.)

Dear August1991, Her quote indicates that it is not her that is put off, but rather I was going to look through this thread last night, because I was sure I had heard this 'conservative boner' joke before, I thought it was here. Celebrity roasts used to be all about 'inappropriate jokes', had this been about reporters, news figures or movie 'actors', this joke would have been the hit of the party. I've heard priests make colourful jokes too, but in a different setting. Does this sort of joke belong in politics? Why not? Belinda could have replied, "Sex can be a powerful tool in politics, look how many times Ralph bent over to please the energy industry when he was Environment Minister!" What do you think she would have been called then?

Indeed, because soldiers don't get to pick their fights, politicians do...I suppose if I had a wish regarding the military, it would be "May one day your job be obsolete". But until then,

Dear Army Guy, Indeed, the Geneva conventions are mostly in place to protect non-combatants (a prisoner is considered a 'non-combatant), and to keep the business of warfare 'somewhat gentlemanly'. Some might think that this notion is silly, but would one rather surrender to a 'gentleman' or a savage?

Thak You Army Guy, and thanks to those that have ever done service in the name of our country (KrustyKid), but most of all, thanks to those who gave 'the ultimate gift' that I might be free to wear a poppy. Nov 11 is very special to our family, for our dad is a WWII veteran (mentioned here http://www.rcnvr.com/S%20-%20RCN%20-%20WW2.php ) and a 'War Amp', whose birthday is also on this day.

Dear KrustyKid, You had worse than being tortured to death? That must have been pretty bad. I have heard and read (from Gwynne Dyer, and others) that some of the tactics employed by western forces can be very unpleasant. There have been many recruits that have dropped out of 'special forces' training after being subject to interrogation methods testing, saying "If that is what our side is capable of, there is no way I want to be captured by the enemy!". I don't doubt you experienced things most people wouldn't ever care to face. However, I disagree here. It was only 'not condoned' after it hit the newspapers. Certain methods, including the one (suffocation) that led an Iraqi general to be tortured to death, were deemed 'acceptable'.

I have to agree with some of what both sides are saying here, and disagree with some of it. BHS makes a good point, and moreso because this is the real reason Rummy is retiring...he just had his pecker cut off. I don't think he wanted to hang around two more years while impotent. It isn't in his character. Now the Dems are in a spot of trouble...As to Argus' post, I don't believe Rumsfeld was meant to be considered a 'military man', because he is 'one of those'. You make the assumption that what you hear from the administration is the truth, that the US was simply trying to democratize Iraq, and oust an 'evil dictator'.

Dear B. Max, http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/urbanair/ http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/ These are links to mankind's effect of altering weather in his immediate environment. they aren't arguable or discountable. What some may argue is that there is no cumulative effect. However, that would be to deny something logical.

Firstly, this 'Jah-man' thread is what I would call 'partisan trolling', and should be removed from the forum. Secondly, if I am over-reacting, then it belongs in Canada-US Relations moreso than Federal Politics. Thirdly, I am a devout 'leftist', but I would still rather see Harper in power than pretty much anyone else that is around, especially Layton. If someone like Volpe became PM, I think I'd throw up.

Dear August1991, It isn't the time that is the issue, (it takes about 10 min to do payroll for 3 employees) because there is a TOD ([tax] tables on diskette) program that calculates all deductions for you. You just punch in gross salary numbers and copy the deductions calculations. However, as crazymf points out, Further, you should see the paper that RevCan pushes. So, yes, more than $8/hr is paid by the employer at the end of the day. Mind you, with larger companies, costs would increase, and some of them simply 'job it out'. Minimum wage should not be raised, but I don't think it should be abolished, either. I don't want to see shantytowns near a textile plant and a landfill (grocery store) in Canada anytime soon.

Dear Higgly, We do, sort of, at The Hague. That is where I thought Saddam should have been tried, rather than some farcical 'kangaroo court' in Iraq. If you'll recall, the judge for this case was recently removed because it was felt that he was 'too soft' on Saddam. So, they installed a new judge to ensure a guilty verdict.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w110513A.xml Good to see that this crime is not going unpunished, but is this the right thing to do? That is, should others be held accountable in the same way? Should the perpetrators of, say, the illegal invasion of Panama be captured and hung?

Dear Black Dog, Essentially true, but I generally have a greater choice as to what I will or won't pay money towards. I can't listen to commercial radio, it drives me nuts. ( I can't furrow my brow enough to find the 'disc jockeys' even remotely funny)I listen to CKUA, a publicly funded radio station out of Edmonchuck, or CJSW, the University of Calgary radio station. Occasionally I will listen to Fairchild Radio, a multicultural station that has time blocks for different cultures and countries, and sometimes, (though rarely) CBC 1010. Kimmy, No offence intended, you are still everyone's favourite poster here!Argus, I have never seen it, but I do have a favourite political show, called "Yes, Minister" (and later, "Yes, Prime Minister") Fantastic stuff, intelligent and witty. I also don't doubt that a lot of politics works this way.

Dear kimmy, At first I thought that you were trying to get banned, with the 'cut and pasting' of entire quotes with only smarmy one-liners for content. However, my two cents: I wish television could be banned. Society would be so much better off without it (except for the nefarious state-control responsible for the banning). I blame the man who invented the TV Dinner for the downfall of society. I have never seen an episode of 'Seinfeld' (I have watched about 3 minutes of it and it made me want to wretch), nor the sopranos, nor have I ever heard of any of the shows bandided about like 'Lost', etc. My wife likes a couple of shows, like CSI, for example, but hates it when I am in the same room when the TV is on, because I can't seem to keep from pointing out the silliness of it all... It is all make-believe, like children playing 'house', only some people take it seriously. They even make careers out of 'playing house'. They have awards shows for people who play 'house' better than others. Worst of all, some of my paycheque goes towards it, simply because there are products that I need to buy and the manufacturer or the seller is a sponsor or advertiser. I will admit to being a TV watcher in the past, I tried to never miss an episode of M*A*S*H, and watched it until the final episode, even though the quality had gone downhill. Today, I watch maybe a couple of hours per year. Mostly news. Life is far more interesting.

What's in a name, I suppose...http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html It has been speculated that Abraham, (or Ibrahim, to the Arabs and in the Koran) was a 'Prince of Ur' before migrating east to present day Israel...

Dear August1991, I guess this answers your question of another thread "Do leftists eventually turn right?"....(and gives the reason!)geoffrey, I was under the impression that both the gov't and the 'market' thought that saving money was a bad thing. If everyone saved, no one would be spending...bad for a consumer driven market. On the gov't side, saving means no spending, and that means no tax revenues...really bad for the gov't coffers.

Dear geoffrey, That's what it looks like to me, a sort of 'use it or lose it' cajoling.