d_rawk

Thanks. Pleasantly surprised that there has been a fair amount of moderate and patient reaction to the news, even by those within the Southern Baptist Convention. (although I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to track down some reactionary shrillness out there in the blogosphere) One point that did catch my attention was a concern that just as the SBC may be tied in too tightly with the Republicans, Carter and Clinton's new BNC might err in the same manner towards a deep unofficial cozying-up-to with the Democrats. Particularly given that Bill is bound to end up playing a supporting political role in Hillary's presidencial ambitions, I could see this becoming an ever larger concern, even if ultimately unwarranted ...

*bbbuuummmppp* This thread died too young. Some favourite memories, please. Some of us can't sleep.

Glad to see that not only has Mallick not lost it, but that she may well just be really catching her stride. The Globe's loss.

Oh, never mind, here it is (and what the hell ever happened to DutchTreat??) This should be expanded on and made a FAQ or something. To bring it up to date, George W. and Cheney haven't posted here in awhile, esau=Alabama Man, but the bradm and mice stuff is still accurate. Also, the Lazlo rule applies equally to dimafleck.

Welcome, Genevieve. Hope to run into you sometime in Ottawa. I'll take sooner over later. (unfortunately missed out on meeting StoneMtn and Lassie this weekend, but seems that I wasn't alone ...) Bokonon wrote a really good 'introduction for newbies' post once upon a time, but someone more patient than myself will have to do the work of digging it up ... (Schwa, glad you guys made it back safely. Ugly weather out there)

Ah, but where is the checkbox for, say, 'the unshakeable conviction of deep mystery and wonder, for which the mundane can not -- or at least does not -- account?', or for 'the recognition that paradox need not be reconciled, but ought be celebrated?' Where would we have an Abraham Joshua Heschel tick, who famously penned "I did not ask for success; I asked for wonder." (and followed, tellingly -- "and you gave it to me") [edit:] To be clear, though - AMEN, brutha. Fully in support of a religion/politics confluence in the politics forum. Indisputably inextricable. (Alliteration is dead. Long live alliteration.)

It's absolutely interesting how in retrospect we imagine these things as just the product of 'those zany pre-modern religious folk', when, as you say, so much of it seems to have been socially and politically calculated -- even if shrouded in the moral language of the day. One could draw easy parallels with the 'satanic cult' hysteria of the 80's and to the 'dangerous muslim' hysteria of the present day, I imagine (though the latter is more palpable, for obvious reasons). It's always interesting to look back and see who were the voices proclaiming loudest that the witch trials were not only unjust but unconscionable, and to find that many of those voices were Christian ones, despite the language of their beliefs being usurped by the authorities in the interest of opportunistically inflaming the masses. Convicted in the 40's on a 1735 law because it was convenient to do so at a time of war. The more things change, the more things ... As they say.

Hmm. What the heck do you do?

meggo and I just watched it ... brilliant!

Was this gator? He was running a camera from side stage the first night, at least ...

Dr. Evil and Calamity Jane

nero. haiku? a messy love-in perfect soundtrack for which still ringing in my ears

Welcome, Mr.Flibble. Hope you'll be sticking around.

Some douchebag stole my favourite hot new tie from the workplace, so I'm feeling a bit sulky at the idea of formal wear. Still, I might get in on some semi-formal action ...

Well that'd only be fair if you agree to stop drawing similarities to WWII in exchange Vietnam is far from a perfect parallel, but it's at least less of a stretch than to suggest that unilaterally ousting an isolationist dictator on false pretense after false pretense - in defiance of global opinion - is somehow justifiable in the same way as was a multilateral effort to halt an actively expansive military threat with global pretensions.

I'm sure it would be a challenge to find people who do have a problem with locking up criminals. But what does that have to do with the logistics (political and judicial) and consequences (judicial and social) of mandatory minimum sentencing, except at the most superficial level? ... appears we've tackled this one on more than one occassion

You've been sounding great lately. A lot more comprehensible, and a lot more upbeat. Congrats on that six month chip!

Hmm! Good question! I used to work porn stores and the movies with titles like "Ass To Mouth #18" were always about anal sex leading into oral sex (dick to ass -> dick to mouth). But it could probably be all of those things.

"I'm telling you this only because I am your friend. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, it's forgivable to go ass to mouth."

I'm not sure where he stands on all of that. He took in Emerson without flinching, and he made a comment once (on CBC?) that mandatory bi-elections would have meant that when the PCs and The Alliance Party merged, there would have had to have been somewhere close to a hundred bi-elections. I know that Broadbent (NDP) was vocal, pre-election, about floor-crossing as part of his ethics package, but not sure if Harper ever was. Certainly there are many conservatives, especially from the west, who were. Stephen might have been more neutral though. Would be interesting to dig up some quotes from the aftermath of Stronach's floor crossing and see what he had to say about that in general terms.

I think it's another way of being a cocky instigator, actually. It's a gloves off rebellion against very strong pre-existing social currents, and a challenge to take into account the fact that language is highly politicized and has very real political and cultural consequences, whether you want it to or not. The debate might get old and annoying, but it is at least consistent. It isn't about people being thin skinned, and the point isn't who is or who is not offended. Neither is the point the character (racist or not racist, homophobe or not homphobe, anti-semite or not anti-semite) of the speaker. The point is that words have intended meaning, yes, and also effects that are quite independent of what the speaker intended. Language is the primary vehicle by which stereotype and prejudice replicates itself, regardless of the intent of the speaker. It is a rare thing for someone to sit someone else down and say - "Let me tell you about the jews, and their insidious wicked ways". No. People 'learn' that Jews are cheap and looking to screw you over given the chance because of the way they are spoken about, and most often it isn't what the speaker intended for the listener to get out of the exchange at all. When you affirm one truth ("I was ripped off") by tying it to a seperate truth claim ("Jews are thrifty thieves") which is what you are doing when you say something like "I got totally jewed on those tickets", you carry a prejudice and hatred forward from yesterday into today. This is why it rings so hollow when someone responds with "toughen up, I'm not an anti-semite, it's just a figure of speech". It doesn't matter whether or not you are an anti-semite. It is exactly because the stereotypes are woven into the fabric of the language that they persist. The consequence of allowing it to remain woven into the fabric of the language has very real consequences for people living very real lives. It is willfull participation in an evil. Likewise the fact that young boys learn very early on that it is a terrible thing to be a fag, and a very dangerous thing at that, often before they are even exactly sure what it really means to be a fag, or gay, or a homo, or whatever other words we use slanderously. The blanks get filled in later, but the affirmation that it is a horrible shameful thing indeed gets there first. This is also why the "there are bigger problems to worry about" arguement is so naive. Those who have spent some time worrying about or fighting those bigger fights pretty quickly come to realize that language is so often precisely exactly how those bigger problems got to be so damn big in the first place. And it is why for every fire that gets put out, two others start blazing just as quickly. It isn't about being offensive (although general decency might invite you to take that into account, for seperate reasons), it isn't about being 'impolite', and it isn't about the beliefs or non-beliefs of the utterer. It's a challenge to acknowledge the ways these things give strength and new life to hatreds so prominent that they have become idioms even in the very way that we communicate with each other. It's an invitation to assess the degree to which you want to remain a willing participant in real fucking evil. It's not just irresponsible, it's downright scandalous. Chameleon's "homo-trance" or "ginos" didn't personally offend me. And him throwing those two things out casually and flippantly aren't all of that. But they are a part of the totality of all of that, which is why they need to be confronted when the happen. The totality is but the sum of its parts after all, however benign those parts might appear in isolation. It is because these things can be so casual, and because they tend to be so benign appearing and generally inoffensive on their own that they become so dangerous as they work themselves into our interactions with each other. If they were more offensive, if they all felt like a kick in the stomach, we'd be a lot safer from them. Language shapes us as much as it reflects us. Individually, in ways, but so much more collectively. It isn't about being thin skinned or too sensitive. [i swear I meant to leave this all alone ... this is what happens, sometimes, when I can't sleep. Apologies, because I agree that the this all has gotten so very, very, very old. But being tired of it isn't justification enough to let it go.]

I don't know if I managed to spit it out to Guigsy on NYE or not, but dude is totally looking like he should be penning sexy-dark novels in Paris. Awesome.

I don't know that I've ever met Chameleon or dimafleck. FWIW, I take your assurance that Josh isn't a racist or a homophobe to heart, and trust that's the truth of it. Unfortunately, "homo trance" has all the charm and sublety of "nigger beats" -- and similar implications and difficulties for both the speaker and the hearer. meggo is adorably sensitive about such things, and much to her credit, she lives this stuff out in the trenches and fights seemingly impossible fights in favour of the disenfranchised. She chafes at language like that, so do I, and so - apparently - does dima. I don't know if you two have pre-existing heat that predates this thread, and maybe that has something to do with the strength of your reaction. But for those of us who don't know The Chameleon, using language that unapologetically disparages the entirety of "an other" leads to pretty obvious conclusions of the same. Josh is probably neither a racist nor a homophobe. But he speaks like one. I'd think our confusion might be forgivable, given all that. But it seems like this discussion happens over and over again on this forum. I wonder if there is any value in pursuing it all over again.

Heh. William, I meant the "delighted; pleased; satisfied." definition. That said, I did a number on my back recently, and reserve the right to chalk my satisfaction with the present direction of a Conservative party policy up to the use of alcohol as a muscle relaxer the moment an election rolls around

Huzzah! The results of the first rounds of testing on your average Canadian citizen made some headlines back in Nov. 2005 (I said in a post titled "powder, blood & ethics" in that first blog that I ever started and abandoned that "this is just a point the size of a pin on the tip of the tip of a very large iceberg") Glad to see the testing re-emerge, and with prominent political figures as the test subjects this time. I'm pretty chuffed about the Conservative's policies regarding chemicals. Gawd knows the Liberals were never anxious to do anything about it, and never made a single gesture to indicate that they ever would. IMO Ambrose and Co. can laud CPC policies as much as they like, so long as they keep the beneficial ones up. (Fuck, how upside down has the world gotten? I just came to the defense of Ambrose and Clement!)