Birdy

I found it interesting last night reading all of what was being said and watching how the discussion went so quickly to accusations of anti-semitism (both in this thread and in the food policy thread) and thought that was a pretty sad reflection. I think Desmond Tutu is one of the greatest men that's lived on the planet earth in the last century, and thought his book 'No Future without Forgiveness' pretty awesome with a powerful message. He brings up some good points here that should be considered, because ultimately today (many would agree) it is very hard to be critical of Israel (as I don't think anyone last night was even remotely being critical of Israel, but the very mention of the subject brought out all the voices) without falling into the trap the conversation last night brought about:

hahah this particular crazy is actually my fifteenth cousin! or something like that. She's CRAZY. Quite actually. I remember as a kid growing up hiding in the living room as per my mom's instructions when we'd see her car come into the driveway. haha But yah, unfortunately the number of informed people to uninformed people on these issues is quite drastic, the uninformed outweighing the informed. A lot of the time it's everything the informed can do to muster up enough support to quel the ridiculousness that is the uninformed. Seems like the mustering up was quite successful in this particular case Edger.

YAY MEGGO! Happy birthday lady!! Nice to see you this past weekend... hope you made it back to O-town in one piece! Have a great day (+year) (+life)!

*gasp* It's the interests of the individual that form the community.

Did you really get that from me saying 'look around the grocery store, there's not much left'? How? I am not the one to be right about secularism radicalizing people. That was in an article I posted.

Take a look around the grocery store, not much is left.

First Studies Encouraging on Lake Erie wind turbines edit: oops!

Some might.

I can attest to the faint swooshing sound... i've toured about 7 of them myself... and while I agree, they're MAMMOTH (someone said that the little nose bit in the centre of the blades is the size of a city bus), they don't in the slightest sound like a jet engine.

I can't speak for what happens elsewhere, but I heard CK residents get $10,000/year for having a wind turbine on their property. It's the Sunday drivers who idle down the road at 40-50km below the speed limit, gawking about and causing accidents, that get all riled up when their view of flat land (at least here in CK) is obstructed by a wind turbine. I for one think they look pretty cool. Their insightful solution (if they have a solution, which 9 x out of 10 they don't) is 'why can't you build them up near Goderich, why do you have to build them here?' So when you couple their argument - that they're ugly or they kill birds, with their solution of build them elsewhere, they're actually saying 'go ruin someone else's day'.

Come on down to Chatham-Kent where localists are lobbying councilors with the argument: "Your mandate is to protect the citizens of Chatham-Kent, not save the world!" Fuck me. People in this town are f'ing idiots.

The interview was in 1995. I think she makes the same mistake with manhood because the mistake has already been made with feminists. She doesn't say she supports the idea of the men's movement, she says it's absolutely necessary. Like a counterbalance. I do agree though - nothing is celebratory in calling men eunuch's.

maybe this is better (rather than assume I'm all for Paglia):

uh oh? whole new can of worms?

No. Camille Paglia says it much better than me. Check out these links for further clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia http://privat.ub.uib.no/BUBSY/nomore1.htm

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. And honestly things like that don't bother me, as after all, I am a girl and probably have become somewhat immune to it over the years. No worries.

Well, ultimately it boils down to recognizing the legitimacy of differing ideas. Because if this were a government we'd see progression by way of laws being passed that have the potential to be good, and a give and take to make them better and help them along. But it's a web forum, so the only measure of progress is that of a smiley face and the dawning that we all want what is good, but we have different ways of getting there. There doesn't exist a need for us to form policy. Progress is in the peaceful co-existence and the ability to show how all sides are capable of caring.

wait! a terribly sexist comment? I don't remember... I hear what you're saying about minority governments and agree. I think though in the foreseeable future no party will force an election and so they won't really have a choice other than to cooperate. And that goes both ways too with Harper and the right wing agenda. He knows that Canadians won't stand for that shit. Hopefully, once the foreseeable future passes, Canadians will have woken up and voted for electoral reform.

i get around! first Ollie, now TB. :blush:

ha! The fucking awesome comment was totally a defense on my part and i'm sorry. I guess i was feeling that you were trying to portray me as some kind of monster, or less than what I feel I am, so I threw it out there. At least you'll be able to quote that forever. I was thinking about how you consider me sensitive to your posts, and how others have said the same thing before, and kinda wonder if it's because i'm a girl, as generally we girls are more sensitive when it comes to this stuff. I'm not providing an excuse, I'm just wondering if that contributes to my sensitivity. The FYI was in response to you saying my post was the most cogent reasoning i've offered so far. I sat there for a second and thought, 'well, all i really did was recap what I've been saying all along'. I didn't mean it to be a back-handed comment, just a reflection of what I thought upon reading what you wrote. I'm not finger-pointing at you. I fully accept that I'm guilty of the same thing I accuse you of. I'm no better. I'm just hoping we can both move past it, together. edit: my deleting of the posts had nothing to do with 'looking bad'. frankly, people on this board have seen me look my worst. ps. i'm sorry for deleting it if you were going to use it as reflection. I assumed we were both in the mindframe (because I was) that we'd use not the good stuff, but the bad stuff to just continue on down the same path.

It's okay. I just don't want to have us fly insults back and forth to each other when we could have civilized conversation. My post above is a recap of what I've said over and over again in countless threads FYI. You're right, historically minority governments haven't had too much success, but i think we're moving towards a different era where the days of strong majorities are gone, and our politicans are going to be forced to figure out how to work with one another. What do you mean by "I want you to keep burning books to get rid of the evil ideas"?

Yikes... i just reread what I wrote and can barely make sense of that jumbled up mess. My point is this TB, there are good sides and bad sides to every political party. You saw my initial post on Sunday, where I explained my views on our social structures in Canada, to which you admitted were sound. What political party in the riding of Chatham-Kent offers me the closest thing to those ideals? I can tell you wholeheartedly it's not the Green Party, not the Libersl and not the NDP. I have told you that I recognize the hard-right element in the Conservative party and that I don't support their ideals. I don't believe Harper's government does either. I have told you that I voted for the CP because I knew they'd get a minority, I have also explained elsewhere that I'd never vote for any party that I thought would get a majority. Minority governments have the ability to work together and have the ability to quel these polar extremes, one of which would be the right wing agenda you abhor. I have explained in numerous posts throughout the years that I identify as a libertarian, but that I also identify as a Canadian and recognize the political climate that we work with and the political climate that has led us to where we are today, and to be your wikipediatic definition of libertarian would probably be catastrophic. I have told you that I like individual liberty, but I have also explained that I recognize the importance of social structure, and have gone on to explain how i think we could have the most individual liberty within our social structures. And finally and unfortunately, those who fall on the right side of the political spectrum, really don't have much choice by way of voting. Actually, in my riding, they don't have any choice. That's something to always keep in mind. I am not going to change my entire political philosophy because of one polar extreme and cast a vote for the NDP. What do you want me to do? Not vote? Or vote and continue to try and make things better? I prefer the latter. And finally, finally, I deleted the record of our conversation because I didn't want to participate it any more. It was not a conversation but a silly back and forth bickering, insult-laden piece of tripe that for the most part made me feel like shit for having taken part in. It's gone as perhaps a symbolic gesture to show that I'm done with it. In that light, please stop telling me I can claim moral victory. It's the furthest thing I'm trying to do and really, really weakens your points. Why not just respond in kind to what I wrote, what matters to me, and not what you think should matter more to me?

I don't know how many times I have told you TB the things I disliked about the conservative party, and how in how many different words I have put it in how i envision minority governments working together, and outright have said "i voted for a MINORITY conservative government". You continually question why I support militarization, policing and incarceration and i continually tell you I DON'T! Honestly, it's tiring because I'm telling you the same thing, over and over and over and over again and you're attacking me with the same thing over, and over, and over again. Yet you refuse to see it, and you refuse to see the post I deleted, to which you responded, which spelled out quite clearly why I identify more with the right-wing (two-tier approach) and less with the less wing (universal approach). Do you ever let yourself consider that these things would heavily weigh my vote? I supported a MINORITY. Remember that, PLEASE. I have also repeatedly told you I adore individual liberty and yet you find it hard to consider why I think socialism wouldn't work for all. If we all have the potential to be good, we have the potential to do it in different ways. I like the individuality of it all. I've told you this, yet you question me like you can't understand how i wouldn't support socialism. I'm not to be had for your want of cracking, if that's what you're trying to do. There's bad everywhere TB. You find bad in the Conservatives, i find bad in the NDP, but that doesn't mean I think you're bad, and you don't see me continually bringing this up in thread after thread after thread after thread. There's good in the conservative party too, just as there's good in the NDP.

Thank you for this perfect little paragraph.

Linda Hind, is that YOU!? :laugh: