PocketRocket

There used to be a radio phone in show; "The Lowell Green Show" every weekday morning. I don't know if Lowell is still on the air, but we don't get him where I live any more. On one of his shows, the topic was about how Ozzy Osbourne's song "Suicide Solution" was responsible for some kid taking his own life. The frightening thing was how many people were calling in agreeing with that sentiment. So, I phoned in. I explained that I have no liking at all for Ozzy, but that I disagreed with the general concensus of the program so far. I got blasted by Lowell. When he finished, I explained that, in my opinion, if someone listens to a song, or watches a tv program, or reads a story, or whatever, and then goes out and kills themself or someone else, then that person had BIG mental problems to start with. Got blasted for that, too. He went on a tirade about how various crap in the media has caused kids to go a shooting sprees in schools. So I asked him what he thought caused Hitler to ravage Europe, and suggested that perhaps Adolph was listening to too much Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra. Lowell called me an idiot and hung up on me, then went on to call me a few more names after I was off the line. I got a good chuckle from the whole thing. He didn't. I think I peed in his Corn Flakes.

August1991: Good post. Lots of good ideas there. I'm going to ruminate on that one for a bit. It certainly has a fair bit of food for thought.

No problem. The whole point is that no matter what new, politically correct word you may use to define a group of people, eventually, it will be used in a derisive fashion by someone, and at that point it begins to degenerate to just another "bad" word. If this was not the case, then the original words for most of the groups would still be in use. This is what I mean by "intent". If I say a person is "mentally retarded", when they in fact are, then what's the big deal??? As long as I am not using the word in context of a slur. When the Pretenders wrote the song "Brass In Pocket" circa 1982, I'm sure that Crissy Hynde did not mean she had mental difficulties when she sang "I'm special, so special" I mean, there's got to be a line somewhere where we realize we've gone beyond the realm of common sense.

Thanks to IMISSTRUDEAU for the link which was posted as a reply to KIMMY in another thread. It gave me some ideas. I had a bit of fun with this one. Hopefully, it's taken in the spirit intended, and no one gets offended. (If you DO get offended, then that's the whole point of the post. Grow some thicker skin.) http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miftocllspdspd.shtml Has political correctness gone way over the top??? Examples: Retarded. Not a nice word. We must call them "Special needs" people. And yet, the word "retard" simply means "to slow", a pretty good description of the mental process in someone who wears that label. But "retarded" became on of those "dirty words"and we had to find something more sensetive. We started with "Mentally handicapped", and that was okay for a while, but then it too became a dirty word, so we moved on to "Mentally challenged" which was good for a bit. Now, they are simply "Special". (I guess I better not tell my girlfriend that I think she's special) Negro: The word simply means "black" in Latin. "Nigger" was simply a slurring, or mispronunciation of "Negro", which was socially acceptable for a very long time. "Colored" was okay for a while, then it too became a dirty word (although, last I heard "Person of Colour" could be acceptably used to describe anyone with racial-hereditary dark skin tone. I feel left out here. I am a person of colour, it just happens that my colour is pale pink). "Darky", "Spook", "Gigaboo" etc etc, were all "nicknames" which were never intended to be complimentary, but were nonetheless widely used by both whites and blacks. During the 70's "Black" was the word of choice. Now, it's "African American" A rose by any other name. American or Canadian Indians are another example. "Indian" was completely acceptable for hundreds of years. That has all changed. First it changed to "Native American/Canadian". Then it became "Aboriginal Peoples" Now it's "First Nation Peoples". It has gotten to the point wherein the use of old, familiar phrases is being looked down upon because they may just happen to offend someone. In the link provided above, phrases like "A chink in his armor" (Chink- derogatory for Chinese) and "A nip in the air" (Nip-derogatory for Japanese) are being called into question, and some are actually suggesting that these ancient, time tested phrases be eliminated from further usage. "Let's call a spade a spade" simply means "speak plainly". (It's also on the "recommended not to use" list) Don't even get me started on Homosexual-related words and their original meanings. Oops, too late now, here it comes.... Gay.....Happy or glad. Faggot......A burning log. Homo....A grade of milk. Queer.....Odd or peculiar. Queen....A ruling monarch (usually female). From now on, I want the same consideration. I am NOT bald. I am "Follicly Impaired". My nose is not big. I am "Nasally Gifted". I am not short. I am "Vertically Challenged". I do not have flat feet. I am "Pedally Stable". Ridiculous. The funny thing is that WITHIN each and every group, people feel fine using these "slurs" in a playful manne as a matter of course. Gay guys calling each other "fag" in fun. Black guys or girls calling each other "Nigga" in fun. And so on. We've all heard it. But if you or I call a gay guy "Faggot" or a black person "Nigger", we could well be facing a serious trouble. My contention is simply this, ANY word or phrase can be used in hurtful manner. Our society has got to grow a bit thicker skin and realize that it's not the name, it's the intent behind the use of the name that determines whether or not the name-caller has good or bad intentions. My mother was Italian. My father was French/Scottish/Sioux. I am a Wop/Frog/Haggis-Eating/WagonBurner. And, damn it, I'M PROUD OF IT What are you thoughts on excessive political correctness???

Whether or not you agree with him, at least CAGERATTLER seems to have something to say, and usually manages to cite a quote to support it. The preceding two quotes were your contribution to this thread. Other threads I have glanced through today show you spouting more of the same "Dem Liberals, dey are all crooks, eh? Next time 'round, we gonna kick der butts outa Quebec, eh". Comparing either CAGERATTLER or the Liberals to Nazis shows just how far YOU are willing to stoop to make your non-existant point. Maybe all you have to offer is slurs. I certainly haven't heard you make any brilliant arguments supporting the BQ. Why not open a thread and enlighten us all??? If you can't manage to do that, and all you can continue doing is mouthing off about how everyone that is not the BQ is bad, then you're wasting time and bandwidth.

In interest of fair play, and considering that I repeatedly rebuked someone else for using terms like "Fiberal" and "Pinko" and "Pinnochio Club" etc etc, I have to say that I agree. CAGE, you don't need to shovel out this kind of crap. All that name-calling does is take away from the legitimate points you are making. That being said, good couple posts here. I was unaware of the MacKay thing, but I'm not at all surprised to read about it. I've said all along that the majority of politicians are crooked, and will do whatever they feel they can get away with, regardless of party affiliation. The $1.2Billion dept assumption is also new on me. Both these examples kind of put the shoe on the other foot vis-a-vis Gomery and Bombardier. My favorite part of the article is.... But Harper won't tell us who paid it either, and yet we're supposed to take HIS word for it that it's all on the up-and-up. To me, this makes both of them hypocrites every time they open their mouths about the sponsorship scandal. Until they give full disclosure, that hypocrisy remains.

Truer words were never spoke. A decade and a half of Liberal government has made everyone forget just how bad the last Conservative government was. I've been saying for 25 years that it's time to give someone new a chance. Voted NDP for a while, then Reform. But, being that I don't belong to a major union, the NDP is not for me. Reform no longer exists. Nor does the Conservative party. They've morphed into something else, which to my mind, has yet to define itself in anything other than negative terms....."We're not like them because we wouldn't......." I believe Preston Manning was our biggest hope of changing the political landscape in Canada. Unfortunately, his vision has degenerated into another political 3 ring circus.

I don't like the Liberals. I don't like the Conservatives. Reform isn't there any more, at least not in any recognizable manifestation. NDP??? A fringe party, as always. BLOC??? Not worth mentioning other than as an embarassment to the country. But whoever is in power, there is corruption. There is nepotism. There is glad-handing. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.... The Liberals are simply doing exactly what administrations before them have always done; whatever they feel they can get away with. The REALDEAL said In other words, in the past 12 years the Conservatives haven't had a chance to screw us over because as bad as the Liberals may be, the voting public seems to think that the Conservatives are worse. Otherwise, they'd have been voted in by now eh??? Oh well, bad as things may seem, at least we're not starting wars every 2 years.

No prob. Way ahead of you there. Yeah, I heard about that. I also heard that all the Liberals were going to cut off their own right hands just in case Bush comes to visit again, that way they won't have to shake hands with him 1) Gee, no other political party in Canada has ever been corrupt, so only the Libs should be banned. 2) Please elucidate. 3) I don't believe you. 4) How about "Anti-get-pushed-about-by-the-USA??? 5) Really??? 6) That one I can agree with. 7) But not that one. 8) Like any other party,administration. 9) See answer to #8 10) You're repeating yourself 11) See # 10 12) See # 11 (You really DO have a Pinnochio fixation, don't you??? Something about an appendage that grows to be long and rigid turn you on???) Indeed. Say no more. PLEASE say no more.

Ah, but you're all missing a very important quality. Many women have bemoaned the fact that it's very difficult to find a man who is good looking, intelligent, prosperous, AND SENSITIVE. Unfortunately, most of these men already have boyfriends of their own

Well thank you, sir. Occasionally we do agree. Human nature dictates that we try to turn issues to our own advantage. This often means spinning the news to accomodate our viewpoint (or party) of choice. Actually, the news is often fairly accurate, but the accompanying commentaries are, as stated previously, matters of opinion. When we KNOW that the opinion is coming from someone with a known agenda, we should take them with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot distinguish between fact and opinion. At least that's my opinion. But then again, my opninion is the only one that counts Lots of people hold their head of state as being something sacred, or someone who can do no wrong, and so they choose to believe whatever "Big Brother" tells them. Unfortunate, but true. What was it Britney Spears said??? Something about "My President would never lie to us, and he will always do the right thing, and we should support him fully", or something to that effect. Poor, naive child. Nice body, though. A head of state is, like the rest of us, merely human, and subject to all the same foibles as the rest of us. Likewise representatives of the media. Likewise all these political commentators. ESPECIALLY the political commentators. They are PAID to have foibles that are BIGGER than those of the rest of us.

I agree, the Liberals are corrupt, like almost every other party in history, at least when it comes to money. The difference is the Libs got complacent about it because they held a majority for so long. Now they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Perhaps if the USA would quit trying to re-make the entire world in it's own image, and would keep it's nose out of at least SOME of the other countries in this world, then there might not be such a "threat" to America. I have yet to see this "threat" to the rest of North America manifest itself. Is it really there, or is it a boogeyman invented by the Bush regime to get us to go along with GWB's plans for "Fortress America"??? Oops. There's "Pinnochio" again. A good little boy who lied, then learned his lesson and had a happy ending. Is that how you see the Liberal party??? The softwood lumber issue has been going on for years. The Mad Cow incident with the beef was just a good excuse for the USA to shut out our beef products from their market for as long as possible. America has been playing this game since LONG before 9/11. Your theory seems to be to give America whatever they want, and then they'll be nice to us. I think that the more we give in, the more they'll try to push us around. It's been going on for DECADES. Read some history on the Canada/USA economic dealings since WWII. This crap is hardly new. Well, it kind of sucks, but then again, the rest of the world manages to survive having to carry passports. I imagine we'll all survive, too. But, if memory serves, this has been threatened before as well. It seems that the Libs are on the right track in at least this regard. They are trying to increase trade with China, which is emerging as the world's largest market. If nothing else, the Libs seem to be sensible enough to recognize the fact that we must diversify and expand our consumer base. Additionally, the USA may not need us as much as we currently need them, but they surely do need us a lot. If they cut off all our goods, then we cut off their power. Standoff. Turn off the lights in New York City and they'd be howling for us to turn 'em back on again. Especially in the summer. New York without air conditioning??? Hah. They wouldn't last a week.

Me too. But unfortunately only politicians get into politics, and an honest politician is as easy to find as a Dodo bird. That being said, I'm pretty pi$$ed at the Libs right now, too. Oh well, at least I have the comfort of knowing I haven't voted for them since the mid-80's.

Can anyone say "Martha Stewart"??? How about "Leona Helmsley"??? Sorry, RB. Having a bit of fun. In all seriousness, I have no problem voting for women (and have done so a couple times in the past), but if you call it "The Women's Party", you'll probably alienate a lot of men as voters. (Unless, of course, you invite them to the party)

Not only for 9/11. Remember that big power failure 2 years ago that blacked out most of Ontario and a chunk of Quebec, along with a lot of north eastern USA??? Yup. Rather than searching for the problem in earnest, the first thing the US government did was point a big fat finger and say "It's Canada's fault". A little while later, guess what??? It was found that the problem started in The USA at a faulty power station, and because they did not have the proper safeguards in place throughout the American grid, there was a domino effect that took out almost 1/3 of the continent's power when it should have been restricted to affecting a few thousand people in Michigan. Good thing for Bush that Canada is here to take ALL the blame. I'm surprised that he hasn't yet tried to implicate Canada in the Timothy McVeigh case, or Columbine, for that matter. IKNOWBEST: Now that we finally got the word "pinko" out of your system, how long is this "Pinnochio" fetish of yours going to continue??? Just a leg up for you; any joke is funny once, but after reading the same crack a dozen times, it gets pretty stale, and just makes the writer look like an ass. If you scratch your head REAL hard, maybe you can come up with more than 1 humorous idea/week.

CAESAR: I have been refuting you throughout this thread. In all reality, I sort of agree with you. Here's how; I think it's a bad judgement call on the kid's part. Yes, these pictures could come to have a somewhat detrimental effect on her future life vis-a-vis job hunting and so forth. But that would only happen if the employer was aware of the pictures. If he IS aware, odds are that he saw the pics firsthand. Let's face it, with the immense number of girls posing nude online, individually, they fade into anonymity. At worst, it seems to me an inexpensive way for the girl to learn a lesson that she will not forget in later life. At best, it'll be a fun little adventure for her, and most likely a phase she'll quickly grow tired of. But the only thing I see wrong with it is that it shows questionable judgement.

If by "handle the situation" you mean she can keep the car between the white lines and read the road signs, you are right. But the driving test does not take into account how she might react after having the "worst breakup ever" with little Johnny down the street. She may, in a fit of pique, decide to run him over. If she's only 16 at the time, she wouldn't even by tried in an adult court. Nudity is safer when it's published in print??? I don't see how you can prove this. I am sure the family of Dorothy Stratten would disagree. Just as they are always looking for kids who have gone missing while walking home from school, or the playground, or the park, or just about anywhere else you can name. I agree 100%. *sigh* Age of consent is an arbitrary number chosen by guys in suits. Do you honestly believe that this "law" is going to be observed by a young girl who has decided that she is ready to have sex, and is actively seeking a partner??? Additionally, do you think it is going to discourage said partner??? Admittedly, many men WILL back away from sex with a girl who is beow age of consent. Many will not. Also, if the girl claims to be 16, or better yet, 19, then what is the male to do??? Should wwe be asking for photo ID before having sex with someone??? I agree that we need to have guidelines in place to protect the young, but the age of consent law, as it currently stands, is a two-edges sword. Many lives have been ruined by the stigma of "child abuser" when the older participant has been unaware of the true age of the younger. This has happened to men and women both. Unfortunately, at the moment, I have no better ideas for addressing the issue.

You think you have it bad??? After playing "Centipede", I developed an irresistable appetite for.....oh never mind.

PEORGIE: As another proud Canadian, I have to say that I found that last post of yours to be nonsense combined with over-the-top nationalistic braggadocio. Yes, Canada made a large contribution in WWII. It is ludicrous to say we did more to win than anyone else. Each individual soldier from each individual nation did all he could. That's enough. The "undeniably stupid americans" comment was especially unwarranted and offensive. (To all Americans on this board, please understand that this opinion is not shared by all Canadians. I may disagree with many of the actions and policies of the current administration, but GWB is NOT the American people, nor is he the USA. America is a wonderful country, the vast majority of her people are good folk, and the premise on which the country was founded is admirable. However, America is not perfect. Neither is Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, but if I could not live in Canada, then my next choice would be the USA.) And as for this...... Complete and utter nonsense. Like some aggressive nation is going to say "Well, we want to invade the USA, but we better not because we might accidentally hurt a few Canadians". Uh-huh. Yup. That would be the first thing on MY mind if I were a bloodthirsty, invasive, dictator-type. The rest of the post not even merit refuting. TAWASAKM has got it right about feeding the trolls, but some offensive posts need to be addressed. Back to the issue at hand. Coulture, Hannity et al, are NOT in the business of reporting news. They are in the business of increasing ratings. They will say whatever they feel like saying on the air. No matter how stupid or outrageous each comment is, they will continue to make those comments until their respective networks have decided that they are no longer getting the ratings, or until they finally step over the line and say something so offensive that it embarasses the network itself. Same goes for FOX news. The news reporting itself is not all that bad, much like any news station or network. The editorial comments and/or insinuations made in their commentaries are pieces of OPINION, which are designed to, you guessed it, GET THE RATINGS. As long as ratings are king, we'll continue to see trash-talking commentaries from both sides of the spectrum, and Coulter is simply another mouthpiece who makes loud noises and happens to appeal to a certain demographic. But then again, World Weekly News also appeals to a certain demographic. Maybe someday soon we'll be seeing "Bat Boy" doing commentaries, too. His opinions have just as much merit as Coulter's, or Hannity's, or mine, for that matter.

It depends how young. Good answer. Seriously, if a girl is allowed to have sex at 14, or rather, if a man can legally have sex with a consenting girl of 14, then why would it be wrong to look at a nude picture of a girl that same age??? Nudity itself does not imply sexuality. In our culture many people see it that way, though. There are paintings by some of the old masters of nude children, including prepubescent, and barely pubescent girls. These are not "sexual" pictures. Many European cultures have a very relaxed attitude towards nudity. Many of these same countries have some of the lowest incidences of rape in the world. When nudity becomes de-mystified, then the simple sight of a woman's breast does not arouse sexual feelings in the observer, he/she has, after all, seen it all before, on a regular basis. In our own culture, sex has been put on a pedestal as being something "special", while at the same time being somewhat of a taboo topic between parents and their kids. How often have we seen parents who dread giving their kids the old "birds and the bees" talk??? As a kid, I had many questions about sex, but was afraid to ask them at home because of the upbringing I received, and the silent messages I got regarding sex and nudity. So, like many kids before me, I learned all the wrong things through heresay from other boys. Most of the information was, of course, wrong. Sex "education" dealt with nothing more than the mechanics of how to make babies. "When the penis is erect, it is inserted into the vagina. The sperm travels up the fallopian tube to..........yadda yadda yadda". So then, why would I sometimes get an erection when there was no vagina present waiting to have anything "inserted"??? I firmly believe that if our society were more open about sex, and taught kids that there is nothing "dirty" or "unhealthy" about the act itself, but that measures should be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy or disease, then we would have a healthier, happier culture. That's easy to answer; 35 years. And sometimes they die at their families hands but that has little to do with this issue. Neither do people who run around in the Amazon with no clothes. Different cultures Different cultures, indeed. But which culture has a healthier attitude towards sex, one where it considered "dirty" to look at nude pictures, or one wherein the human body is considered to be a normal sight??? While I personally do not want to post nudes of myself on the internet, I do enjoy looking at some tastefully-done nude pictures, and see nothing wrong with people who enjoy being seen in the buff. Stupid??? I'm not so sure. It's not a crime to see, or be seen. Dangerous??? I don't know about that either. Do you think her webcam will get all excited and rape her?? As for the girl's right to make her own decision on this, consider the fact that age of consent is fourteen. Legal driving age, where we lisence kids to drive large metal ground-hugging projectiles which can easily be turned into killing machines, is sixteen. A person is considered an adult under the law at age eighteen. We don't allow them to drink alcohol until they are nineteen. Does anyone else see anything slightly askew in this combined picture??? Age laws are largely arbitrary, and change semi-regularly at the whims of politicians depending on the mood of the day. And to address the age issue once again, only a couple hundred years ago a girl of 14 or 15 was considered to be of marrying age. An unwed woman of 20 was often considered "too old" to find a husband. These days, it's a rarity to see a woman married even by age 20 or 25. Mood of the day.

On what foundation do you base this statement???? What connection do you draw between sexual enlightenment and higher education??? Judging from the text of the original letter, the girl already possesses better grammatical skills than a lot of "adults" who frequent this website. She seems to take her aducation seriously, at least in regards to her english skills.

It did. Either that, or you simply were not told about it.

DIGBY: This is nothing new. I'm 45 years old. I recall when I was about 10 years old, a couple kids in the area who would smash windows in vacant houses, houses that were for sale, not abandoned buildings. They would often break into these houses and totally trash the place. Some people are simply jerks, and get some wierd sort of thrill out of breaking things. The same kids would often go around collecting empty botles, just so they could take them out to old vacant lots and smash them. What is the great thrill with smashing bottles??? We can hardly blame video games or rock music or whatever the trend of the week is for destructive behaviour. I may be one of those who never grows up, I just accept my responsibilities like an adult. I am a big kid at heart, and enjoy a lot of activities which many would claim are the domain of kids. I like video games, cartoons, tobogganing, and just general mucking about. In the summer, I still run through the spray from the garden hose. And, I respect the rights and property of others. Nothing wrong with staying young at heart. To me, there is little difference between shooting people in a video game, or playing Cowboys and Indians, as we all used to do when we were kids. In both cases, you are "killing" other people in your imagination. "Cowboys and Indians" may, in fact, be more harmful, as you are aiming your toy gun at a real person rather than an image on a screen. This is, of course, hypothetical, as I don't really believe either of these activities to be "responsible" for violence in society. Nothing wrong with you, pal. A game of cribbage can be more entertaining than any video game, especially if you're playing the game in the company of someone interesting. Or pretty. Not all games are for all people. After all, if we all liked the same music, we'd only need to have one song. Embrace the variety of life. Everyone is different, as it should be. As for your kid, cut him some slack. As long as he's not participating in destructive or rude behaviour, let him be. The best thing for a kid is a good example from the parent. You and I may not agree on all points, but you seem to be a stand-up kind of guy. If the kid takes after you, he'll be a good, solid citizen, someone you can be proud of.

Camilla will not be queen. That has been stated and re-stated, both by herself and by Chuck. She will hold a couple traditional titles of considerably lower status. Duchess of something or other. As for losing the Monarchy, are you kidding??? It'll never happen. Too many people, probably the majority by far, are way too enamoured with the whole royalty idea. Even in the USA where the whole idea of "God given right to rule" was long ago thrown off in favor of a democratic system, people still go ga-ga over real, old-style, European royalty. There's something about a King or Queen that intrigues people like nothing else. England will keep her royalty, as will most other countries that still have a royal family.

The non-proliferation treaty was a tool of the times. It was primarily meant to keep the USSR from increasing it's inventory of nukes. Now that the USSR has crumbled, there is no other power that seems to be able to keep up with the US' production capability, and none seem interested in trying, so teh non-proliferation act is no longer of any interest to the USA. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think I heard something on the news recently about the USA pulling out of the non-proliferation pact.