bloodyminded

Just what are you accusing me of?

Wrong. There has to be a process to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...not the say-so of WalMart Security. There has to be discretionary judicial decisions regarding level and amount of punishment meted out. These are all costs. You can't just grab a suspected shoplifter and start beating the snot out of him. No matter how arousing you personally find such an event. Who is "we"? You think we should enact laws stating "no liberalism allowed"? Then you're in the wrong part of the world. You would find a fascist state much more to your liking.

I think it's just a matter of perspective, then. You could be correct about what you're hearing aimed at conservatives, but you're wrong about how you perceive conservative debating behaviour. Dead wrong. The hatred is palpable. I have learned that I"m immoral, that I don't care about people because of my "elitism" (this from blatant worshippers of elite wealth and power, interestingly), that I'm an anti-semite, and many other surprising facts. Those aren't ideas: that's me. Besides, blaming "the left" for Hitler, Pinochet and Milton Friedman do not comprise "ideas": it's wilfull stupidity, premised on the tautology that "if sumpin's bad...it must be liberal!" But the personal attacks from the political Right aren't a problem? Oh, wait...they don't exist!

Yes, rather than some politicized pretence to some caricature of the Socratic method, it would be interesting to hear Saipan's views on mammoths and the issue of---well, whatever issue it is he's trying to insinuate. Are you defending Creationism, Saipan? Or is your point in another direction?

But I wasn't criticizing conservatism. I was criticizing pop conservatism, and only provisionally...since I pointed out three movies (off the top of my head) that I liked...two of which, in fact, I adore. Look, it's the same with pop liberalism. There are great movies with underlying lefty architecture, and then there are those that are simpleminded sops to liberal sensibilities, lacking anything insightful or truly interesting. See Avatar, for example. But yes, I think there is more crappy pop conservative movies (by proportion, not by actual numbers) than crappy liberal movies, perhaps because, for reasons I don't know, conservatives are smaller in number in the realm of arts and entertainment; and so have a smaller repertoire from which to be influenced, when making overtly-politicized movies, I mean.

I don't like the idea of corporal punishment--especially public. Not least because it's extreme statism, of a type that no libertarian worth his or her salt would even consider. And remember the context: we're talking shoplifters, here.

Whether he knows it or not doesn't change the fact.

Layton could have no possibility whatsoever of influencing, much less "orchestrating," the matter of his State funeral. There's no way to do this.

I asserted--plainly, unequivocally--that I believe we need more democratization, in the manner of improvement to which we've been, more or less, heading for quite some time. Hell, the conservatives' "state rights" and "more provincial power" notions bespeaks of exactly the same impulse, at bottom. It's nothing to do with imposing, or even hoping for, "all people should be equal," since all people are clearly not. It's about being equal in a legal and democratic sense. That's it. It's about diluting the disproportionate amount of political power wielded based solely on wealth. It's not even a controversial idea: except to class-conscious elitists.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Through hostility to thought, coupled with a reflexive animosity towards a liberal fellow like myself? I don't like these movies because they ""re-enforce [my] prejudices." I like them for several reasons, but that isn't one of them. Let's look at Straw Dogs, that brilliant and distressing Dustin Hoffman film: Hoffman's character is a liberal. He's also arrogant, disrespectful, and rather patriarchal in his views of women (at least of his wife). In a way, he's the movie's villain. The violence between himself and the local ruffians is due, yes, to the fact that they're bad apples. (Not necessarily "conservatives," however; that's not a relevant issue.) But it's also thanks to his own provocations, his own personality. He doesn't mean to do it; but that doesn't change the fact that he shares responsibility. This is not a "liberals versus conservatives" film in any way; it's a "liberal versus himself" film. The homicidal violence that erupts is about two things: both the innately violent capacity of human beings, and the fact that violence is sometimes necessary. (Because even though he's partially responsible, once things spiral out of control, he has little choice but to engage in it.) Dirty Harry allows us to cheer for the renegade vigilante, the "clean up the streets at any cost" kind of no-nonsense approach. At the same time, it allows for troubling nuances: it becomes very clear that Harry is not in every way a "good man," and that we wouldn't, or shouldn't, want to be him. (The subsequent sequels simplify the whole matter, more in the typical, morally-simplistic, unreflective manner of most vigilante films.) He's a hero...and an anti-hero, simultaneously. It certainly isn't about "bad conservatives" in any way. That's entirely missing the point. It's an exploration of justice, authority, and audience participation in violent entertainment. And it makes no hard claims, gives no solid lesson we are expected to take with us. In short, it's nuanced, giving us a complex set of problems to think about. Or, if we prefer, it's straightforward, if brutal, entertainment, leaving us a sense of catharsis as the bad guys get killed. Either way works. Taken is, yes, a more simpleminded film. Its excellence is almost purely that of surfaces, little more than a technically proficient movie that understands suspense and pacing and action. And yes, it aligns almost perfectly with early 20th century reactionary foreign policy precepts, and mostly without self-reflection or admitting to any moral quandaries: use violence to achieve your (always decent and understandable) goals; use torture when necessary; hurt innocent people for the sake of the greater goal; and that the French authorities cannot be trusted to do what's right. It even climaxes with the terrible threat of an awful Arab about to deflower an innocent American girl! Hell, it's out of Dick Cheney's playbook! But it's still a good movie. It doesn't "reinforce my prejudices," because, first, it's not really meant to be taken seriously, and second, I was rooting for the fellow all along. I think this rather applies to you, given that I've informed you of why I like these movies. In fact, if anything, The Blind Side is the one that would reinforce people's prejudices against conservatives, if they stopped for a moment to consider the dreck that it is.

As I've pointed out, I don't have any interest in the "corporations are evil" discussion, because that's not how I view these things. And yes, I agree completely about why people distrust corporations. In fact, I said so...odd that you missed it, or that you think I'm on about "evil corporations," since you quote from my posts. I said nothing of the sort. With whom are you arguing?

I want to go on record and say that dogs and cats are both awesome, both loveable and wonderful, and I don't quite get the "cats vs. dogs" argument.

Yes, these are complex arguments, but this is totally beside the point. The point is that most people who dislike and distrust corporations (somewhere around 70%-80% of the population, according to polls...making the vast majority of Canadians and Americans "communists" evidently) have reasons behind this distrust, and aren't just "hippies trying to sound smart." That is, I was correcting the interpretation of why people don't like corporations. But ok, let's look at your points: The issue of the existence of wages...actually, I tend to agree with you. No doubt we have differences peripherally, but the fact of wages does not bother me at all. But your other point seems practically a non-argument: As I've said, I'm not too keen on discussing it in quite these terms. Moral issues are integral, obviously, but corporations are not moral entities; they're utterly amoral (that is, not immoral either), but are comprised of individuals, most of whom are as "moral" as anybody else. We're talking institutional factors here, in which matters of individual morality become intractably complex. Moral people can and do quite easily work within an overarching immoral framework. I would put it to you that the overwhelming majority of Syrian policemen are normally perfectly fine and decent fellows. It's a problem, but continual efforts should be made to combat it. Are you saying that an aspect of our system that is inherently anti-democratic is acceptable to you? Why? There are plenty of ancient and systemic bad practices which we routinely dislike and combat, without declaring "there's nothing to be done." The fact is that in many respects, the richest among us now have less disproportionate and direct political and legal influence than they used to have. I imagine you support this clear improvement, but I don't understand why you'd assert "thus far and no further," based on some spurious notion that the rich minority must have some superior influence over the majority because of fears of "tyranny." Because even if that were so--and I don't see that it is--what makes you think we've magically acheived the pinnacle at this moment of history? Why can't there be more democratic improvements, since you agree largely with those we have achieved so far? All restrictions on tyranny are going to be restrictive against somebody....notably the tyrannical themselves. You could just as well say that the undue and disproportionate influence of the wealthy is itself a kind of tyranny...and it certainly is. Your implied question about exactly how to diminish this existing tyranny is obviously a reasonable one, but it doesn't change the fact that it currently remains anti-democratic, unfair and irrational. Like I said--and as you agree, given your remarks that it's always been this way in some form--we're talking about institutional factors. So I'm not in favour of fast radical reforms, in the manner of dismantling; I'm in favour of incremental radical forms, in the manner of eventually aligning the elite and class-conscious worldview with the more common and democratic worldview of the majority non-elites. It's nothing more nor less than a call for a conservative approach towards a more democratic system.

Yes, some people were making this claim originally. The technical term for them is "paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorists."

Assuming you think Webster's is the only authoritative dictionary--an opinion with which the good people at Webster's would themselves dispute--the fact is that "labour" and "honour" are included in Webster's, and not presented as misspellings, either. Guess they made a mistake.

That's not relevant. The movie is a terrible example of awful pop conservatism. That there's an African-American dude in it doesn't make it "politically correct," especially since the film's whole point is about upper-middle-class religious-conservative white saviours...the young black fella is just a prop for the self-indulgent sanctimony. For good pop-conservative movies, check out Taken, or the original Straw Dogs (I'm dubious about the remake, but we'll see)...or, one of my favourites, Dirty Harry with the excellent Clint Eastwood.

Punishing boycotters. Pinochet. Public flogging (for shoplifters! ). Yes, a picture is beginning to emerge.

My point is that you aren't. (I get the feeling that your very response to this will underscore my assertion. )

"Hug-a-thug liberal" is meaningless; "reactionary statist" is all too real, and is the fundamental underpinning of every tyranny, left and right, ever, without exception.

You're more of a Pinochet kind of guy.

since right-wing libertarians are often more or less religiously-predisposed to their astonishingly contradictory ideology (which in many ways is distinctly opposed to individual freedom)...your analogy is rather apt.

I agree wholeheartedly that the word "evil" is completely inappropriate and obfuscating. However, your definition is no good, as it presupposes a context-free vacuum. The point of most anti-corporate theorizing is based entirely (almost 100%) on two main premises, and a lesser (but growing) one: (1) serious issues with wage-work in and of itself; (2) the fact that wealth and power give individuals (and small groups of like-minded individuals) vastly disproportionate political power and influence...which is an inherent democratic deficit for society; and, more recently, environmental issues, though to be fair corporations differ astronomically on their effects in this realm. In my personal view, #2 is far and away the most important.

No, this is thanks to ideological hijacking by contemporary right-wing self-styled "libertarians"...the type who oppose government tyranny, but usually (often unconsciously, to their credit) support privatized, business-oriented tyranny...that is, they support tyrannical entities that aren't even elected or accountable. "Libertarianism" predates corporations, so corproations cannot be an integral part of the philosophy.

A "stateless society" cannot be "Communism," hippy or otherwise. Funny that you'd use the word "definition" in the same post you make this colossal error in definition.

You've got to be kidding. The amount of vitriol focussed towards some entity called "the Left"--here on this board--outshines attacks on conservatives by probably three to one. And I'm being generous. (And none of these deep thinkers had yet deemed it necessary to even delineate what "the Left" is. To Pliny and Shady, it's everyone from Noam Chomksy to Hitler to Hillary Clinton. For August1991, it's expanded all the way to Pinochet and Milton Friedman! (I still can't believe that one.) For a few of our more hardcore righties, it includes you, as well, WB. "The left! the left!" The obssession is cherished, deep-rooted, and knows no bounds. I think these folks long for the days of the Cold War, frankly.)