sociocanuck's Comments (273)

“You didn't quite go far enough. Edward and Alaska Barbie are both symbols of vapid, shallow, effeminite­-but-still­-misogynis­tic fluff masquerading as something of societal importance.

And that's still not getting at the core the problem.”

“I think it was Robin Williams who defined Compassionate Conservatism as something akin to putting a gun rack on your volvo.

That he's at it again amuses me greatly. :)”

“These kids really have their fingers on the pulse of reality.

I feel warm and fuzzy just reading their thoughts, never mind that a few mirror my own means of coping.”

“Soulfly - Paranoia

Sabbath would have been too obvious.”

“I would so like to see that reality. But consider here in Canada for counterpoint. We DO have a three party system (essentially conservative, centrist, left-of-center). Four if you count the Bloc, though they only run candidates in one Province. Five if you count the Green Party.

You'd probably have to ask AmandaBC for more details about the Green Party of Canada and how they differ from the Green Parties of the U.S. (hint: more progressive) and Europe (hint: far less progressive). I'm sure she won't be quite as disillusioned - probably unfairly - with them as I am, so can give you another perspective.

Anyway, my point is we DO have a Three (-Plus) party system, and our Progressive parties only manage to ride waves of support from "really Far" to "Very Far" away from ever forming a government. Mainly due to spoiling one another in virtually every riding, or being easily smeared with unfair labels that drive moderate voters to the Big Two.

This doesn't keep me from voting though, and always for that left-of-center option noted above. It's not the progressive force it was in its early years, but it's better than giving in to the temptation to just vote for the Winning Team, as chosen from the Big Two, despite the ideological chasm between them and me.”

“As a Canadian with a chronic condition of sorts I think I can very much identify with your state of mind. And I agree that our systems are not 'perfect', but a heck of a lot better than wholly Class and Status based alternatives.

The thing holding us back is a modality: with respect to most social constructs Canada and the U.K. are, like America, fundamentally Liberal Welfare States ('liberal' in the economic sense of the term, not the smear you see coming from dissenters on this site) - which is only one step down from Corporatist. We have a more progressive healthcare system, indeed, but it is hindered by the overall sociopolitical system in which it lies.

Truly Social Democratic Welfare States, on the other hand (Scandinavian nations, mostly) can have their Universal Healthcare cakes and eat them too; because the system on which they stand is far more focused on socialization and social justice across almost every political issue.”

“I think you might have insulted Ghengis Khan, there.”

“You mention party discipline and Canada. I think it's worth noting that in the Canadian system a party leadership can effectively insist that the party vote on certain issues unanimously.

The following is a bit of an oversimplification, but effectively a 'pre-vote' among the party decides which position the party will take and those who dissent at that time are free to vote any way they wish on issues where unanimity isn't required later on. Just not where it is required.

Party discipline is also very much evident in the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada are actually technically just a colation of former conservative parties with a true "Big Tent" far different from the current Republican trend and its increasingly inaccurate claim on that terminology. I don't trust or approve of the Cons any more than I would right-wing pols anywhere else but I do recognize there's a 'Progressive Conservative' (both a former party and a real Canadian ideology despite the seeming contradiction) contingent somewhere in its midst.”

“This seems to me a bit like the special interest groups working to garner support for our actually very right-wing Provincial 'Liberal 'party every election season, but they *really seriously* do not actually have anything official to do with the party establishment. Really. Oh no, they'll swear up and down they aren't connnected, to the point where any rational person (even those they convince to vote Liberal) will recognize they're definitely in cahoots. They just won't investigate how directly. Not even after some of the same people get rewarded post-election for their helpful distortions.

These groups are particularly nefarious about how they misrepresent the New Democratic Party as "socialists" (never mind that no Provincial or Federal version of NDP has officially identified itself as such in over half a century) in direct interaction with immigrants from countries where the word has been incorrectly applied by the powers that be.

The only difference is that those groups rarely actually have high-ranking members of the same ethnicities as those whose votes they sway.”

“Impressive piece. I think you lost me a couple of times, but I'm committed to reading it until I understand the point being made.

Frankly, any argument that involves Marx without being either a complete misinterpretation, or an attempt to undermine it through not-actual­ly-compati­ble concepts from whacky libertarian or right-wing-hero "thinkers", will pretty much always get my attention. Even if I don't understand it at first.

I recognize this complete describes my political bias, but I offer no apologies. ;)”

“As a student and employee of the HI field, myself, I tend to work it into most healthcare discussions in which it fits. The fact that it's high on Obama's list of reform priorities is one of the reasons I tend to cut him and his administration slack for a few things he could otherwise push harder on.

I'd even consider moving to help work on that reform at a HI-company consulting level (I doubt I could get in good with the government, at least not straight away); but that requires that healthcare reform is done right first, and in such a way that legal immigrants aren't lumped into the same excluded category as the illegal ones.

Not to mention that I have a pre-existing condition that no insurance company would ignore in the current environment where that discrimination is not yet illegal.”

“I apreciate any move in the right direction, no matter how seemingly 'small' it is in the short-term. Maybe one bill won't do enough immediately, but with time, patience, and dilligent effort a real change is possible.

Sure, as a progressive Canadian citizen, I'd like to see Americans get a fair crack at a universal system such as ours ASAP - especially since that American ingenuity I chose to believe in could very possibly find ways to improve on it that we can't affect at quite the same rate (hint #1: healthcare informatics has shown marked improvements in expenses and efficiency worldwide, hint #2: Obama has already suggested HI is a major component of his own reform concept).

It is important to note, though, Canada's present system was almost a quarter-century in the making; from a Provinicial Party campaigning on it in 1960 (complete with backlash from the medical establishment in the form of a strike in the two major cities in 1962) to a weak half-and-half federal bill that held sway from the mid 60's to early 80's, to the adoption of the Canada Health Act in 1984.

Each major step in the right direction occurred with a progressive-mined (if not always actually progressive) administration. The pace by which Obama and the Democratic Party is working is in many ways impressive given that comparative context; and I think all the more reason to support every small step in the right direction.”

“I hope - but I'm very optimistic in that hope - that there will be near-future pushes to even more progressive legislation once this one starts showing positive returns. Thanks for getting on board with Stage One.”

“Definitely.

As an outsider of sorts, but not really that far removed, I was able to compare CNN and even NPR, which was much fairer but still a bit slanted toward opinion journalism in their treatment of the day, to the response from our CBC (both Radio and TV's Newsworld) and then on to BBC to hear their version.

What I heard, even when it was opinion, was a far far cry from the American media response on average.”

“I'd rather read the LOLcat Bible for a laugh, but I suppose this might do sometime I have a lot of time to kill and more patience than usual for socially-c­onservativ­e silliness.

It's almost nice to see they've embraced fiscal conservatism as 'okay', though. I recall a time not so long ago when anything of the sort got scrubbed from or heavily amended in conservapedia for not being social-con enough.”

“When I took my MLIS I had the opportunity to take a course on Intellectual Freedom (and censorship, its antithesis) in which we explored a great deal of banned or 'about to be banned' literature, and got to know the reasons behind the challenges (as you point out rightly, people way overstepping their bounds by insisting on what other people couild read) and their remedies.

Libraries deal with a lot more than just banned books, though: as long as it has a film or music collection, anything 'iffy' in there could be a target, too. While I worked in my local library there were vary few actual challenges, but since my neighbourhood has a very large old consewrvative population there were quite a few 'edits' to materials thought unsuitable.

One of the more amusing was someone who found a C.S. Lewis theological treatise offensive for daring to mention women: they crossed out every occurrence of 'she' in the whole book.”

“"I am so smart: S-M-R-T. I mean S-M-A-R-T!" - Homer Simpson”

“To be fair, I'm not sure the potential readership are deliberately treasonous (as they certainly think the opposite) so much as they are guilty of being misled.

Those who do the misleading have less of a case to escape thast Circle, though.”

“There might have been a few slight oversimplifications in there, but I do agree with the general conclusion.

Those who diminish the UN have missed the point that, just like politics, the effectiveness of the UN requires public support. Complaining about the UN's ineffectiveness is a self-fulfilling prophecy; whereas supporting when it produces positive results encourages more of the same.

Unfortunately, that requires that all nations involved respect what the UN represents. And walking out before Imadinnerjacket has spoken isn't respect. Doing so in protest of something said, however, at least respects the process.

I'm not sure the Canadian delegation has any better concept of 'living in the world' rather than 'with it' than does our current leader, based on his antics on every international stage he's given.”

“* "I was just thinking about... and it just came to me"

Multitasking is not my forte this evening. -_-”

“It's about time someone said that, explicitly.

The message needs to get out that (a) this is true and (b) as long as it is, America - that's all of America, not just the "U.S. of" - will continue down a path of regression.

Being "conservative" is one thing, but marching backwards to an imagined history that never really existed serves nobody, no matter their base political ideology.”

“I just relaized what else was irking me about this whole thing; and it just came to me.

The "ALA" seems to be attempting by initialism association to somehow piggyback off the goodwill of several slightly-t­o-distinct­ly more progressive organizations with those initials. First up from Google: the American Library Association.

Where is this ALA? I don't know; I gave up after page 40 and Googled the full name. Only then does it come up.”

“Will this turn out like Conservapedia?

If so, I welcome the comedy.”

“...and no, I recognize that it doesn't change the fact that some people will deliberately 'confuse' the terms and a select few others don't even understand the difference no matter how often it's said.

It doesn't hurt to say it again, though.”

“To be fair (even though it doesn't change your underlying point one bit), the "socialists" engaged against Germany in WW2 were Stalinists, not Marxists by any stretch.

Stalinist brand Communists were definitely not Marxists, as the governing form of Russian socialism had already started to differentiate itself from that with its Leninist form that preceded Stalin. Under Stalin there was certainly a non-aggression treaty up until the Nazi party proved untrustworthy by breaking it (big surprise there). Only then did they start fighting with one another.

If anything this highlights even more difference between all those terms. But those are facts, and facts have a bit of a liberal bias, so clearly they can/should be ignored.”