headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:16
Picon
Picon

Re: Bread and Circuses

> http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2318
> 
> Bread and Circuses
> Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, July 29, 2005
> 
> For decades, Republicans, libertarians and assorted right-wing
> bomb-throwers have been accusing the liberals of using entitlement
> programs to make voters dependent upon the government...increasing the
> power of the Democrats who vote to (expropriate and) bestow such
> benefits upon the masses. Neal Boortz expressed such a view concisely
> here:
>
> The Democrats most certain DO have an agenda. It's just not an agenda
> that they are anxious to promote. The Democratic agenda can be
> succinctly stated in just a few words: Make Americans ever more
> dependent on government, and thus dependent on Democrats.

This is certainly what has happened in Canada, with the federal Liberal
Party, whose dominance of the federal government has become so entrenched
that they are now often called the "Natural Governing Party".

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:20
Picon
Picon

RE: Bread and Circuses

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lance McLain wrote:

> > I see your point, but being dependent for protection is a different
> > issue then being dependent on entitlement programs, and the two can be
> > exclusive.
>
> I'm not so sure they are that different?  Both are based on fear of
> survival.

True, but -- in theory, at least -- armies exist to protect us from real
threats, like *other* armies.  Something like medicare, on the other hand,
could be said to get in the way of letting us protect ourselves.

> In fact, right now, the only reason I need protection from the killers
> is because the state has made them enemies of me.

Not true.

> They weren't enemies of America before we began soldiering and arming
> the middle east.

They probably would have been, though.  Jealousy has that effect on
people.

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:22
Picon
Picon

RE: Bread and Circuses

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, MartyB wrote:
> There's no differnece between defending your life and property and
> giving things away in ways that create dependency? I assume you defend
> and protect your family, and while you give your family food, you
> don't want to create leeches that won't ever stand on their own.

Well put.

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:24
Picon
Picon

Re: Regrets, but No Apology, in London Subway Shooting

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Thom Gladhill wrote:

> > > Again, "potential" isn't a solid reason to kill a person.
> >
> > It may not be "solid", whatever *that* means, but it *is* a reason. Â
> > It's all a question of how you define degrees of "potential".
>
> It means "potential" is a bit vague.

Yes, as is life.  Sometimes we don't have the luxury of clarity when we
want it.

> > Even though other people here have pointed out how difficult it is to
> > do that, outside of the movies, and even though other people here have
> > pointed out that "taking the guy down" (i.e. putting an end to his
> > locomotion) may not be enough (since he can still press the button)?
>
> All of this stuff is coming rapid fire.  So I am still, frankly
> assimiliating a lot of the reasoning. 

Well, frankly, it doesn't seem like it from *this* end.  But I shall be
monitoring your progress.  ;)

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:25
Picon
Picon

RE: Regrets, but No Apology, in London Subway Shooting

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Thom Gladhill wrote:

> > How else would a bomb be triggered.  I'm sincerely curious.
>
> Huh.  So the only way to detonate a bomb is by hand?

Sincerity, meet sarcasm.

> I think there is the potential to detonate bombs sans hands.  Heck, a
> bomb could be rigged to go off even if the bomber himself is dead.

But I presume the odds of it going off are still lessened if the bomber is
dead.

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:34
Picon
Picon

Re: Regrets, but No Apology, in London Subway Shooting

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Karl wrote:
> And right there you nailed why i dont trust corporatoins.
> They dont care about anything but profit.

Well, governments care about profit too, hence taxes and all those salary
raises that parliamentarians and congressmen vote for themselves.

The thing is, the corporation can't force you to buy their products.

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 01:41
Picon
Picon

RE: romance novels (was: Moviegoers Not as Divided on Morality as National Political Debate Implies)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, MartyB wrote:

> > I ask because D is something of a romance novel connoisseur.

Just for the record, Karl, D says she recognizes your sister's name but
doesn't think she's read any of her books.

> > (And yes, I even made a point of reading one myself, just to broaden
> > my horizons; I asked D to lend me her favorite, just to get a sense of
> > what she liked about 'em, and so she did.)
>
> Curious what you thought, having never read any myself that I recall.

Well, D says she particularly likes stories that emphasize chastity and
family etc., and the story she lent me was about a woman who plans to
break up with her husband over Thanksgiving (because her husband is so
busy with work -- he's a successful doctor, and a hunk too, of course --
that he never spends time at home), but then a series of unexpected
relatives' visits and other events conspires to keep everybody in the same
house at the same time, and by the end of it, of course, everything turns
out peachy and the marriage is re-affirmed.  I thought it was okay, though
its emphasis on the husband's, um, appearance and the wife's conflicted
emotions were obviously meant for a female readership.  And given that I
have one of William Shatner's Star Trek novels in my backpack right now,
I'm in no position to judge anyone else's genre preferences.  :)

BTW, D has never read The Da Vinci Code, but she tried to listen to the
audio-book version of it, and she gave up, partly because she said Dan
Brown "writes like a girl" (and she does mean "girl", not "woman") -- she
says that the way Brown describes his characters is what you would expect
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 02:45
Picon
Picon

RE: immigration

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lance McLain wrote:

> > > Personally, I think everyone should have the right to move anywhere,
> > > anycountry they think will better their life for themselves and
> > > their family.
> >
> > I don't.  Otherwise they might move into my apartment without my
> > permission.  Sure, it might make their lives better, but it ain't
> > theirs, and *I* decide who steps in through my door and who doesn't.
> >
> > I'm interpreting your use of the word "anywhere" as broadly and
> > literalistically as possible, of course.  
>
> OK...let me be a bit more specific with "anywhere".  By anywhere I mean
> anywhere that isn't already in use or occupied.

No such thing exists, though.  By that rationale, someone could squat in
my bedroom right now because it's empty and I'm in the living room.

Just as I claim the empty bedroom as my personal property, so too nations
claim certain empty territories as national property.  And just as I
decide who gets to be in my bedroom even when I'm not there, so too
nations get to decide who they allow into their territories.

> As for transportation routes to said "anywhere's" . . .

Was this being debated?  If so, I've forgotten.

> BTW, "use and occupations" as the foundation for property rights is
> not a novel concept and is held by many social thinkers.  You've heard
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 02:47
Picon
Picon

RE: immigration

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Lance McLain wrote:
> The constitution is now used like the Bible is...pick a passage out and
> if you're good enough you can make it say anything you want.

I believe there is a book on the history of the Constitution with a title
like "American Scripture" or "National Scripture" -- something like that.  
I must say I've always found it interesting how Americans go on and on
about their "constitutional rights" the same way evangelicals go on and on
about "biblical principles" or whatever.

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Aug 2005 02:50
Picon
Picon

Re: Enter the evangelicals

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

> > Professor Ron Dart, an active Anglican who teaches political science
> > in the heart of B.C.'s Lower Fraser Valley Bible Belt, says there's no
> > doubt the values of the powerful U.S. religious right "have
> > infiltrated the Canadian soul and psyche" -- especially in Alberta.
>
> I don't suppose Canadians could have picked up these values
> independently?  Or must they get everything from the Americans?  :\

Hard to say, when *Canadian* evangelical bookstores put books like Oliver
North's "Under Fire: An *American* Story" on prominent display.

Yes, I know I cite that example too often, but I don't go to evangelical
bookstores all that often (and there's a reason for that...).

--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------- http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/ ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

--

-- 
DADL-OT home: http://lists.tesserae.org/listinfo.cgi/dadl-ot-tesserae.org 
Archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane