You didn't even read my post did you? You know, the one were I stated that conditions are WORSE on reserves than neighbouring municipalities basically agreeing with you about how about conditions are there?

I've got family that have attended school on reserves, and worked in both the schools and hospitals on reserves.

Please, go read what I said more closely before beating up a strawman argument that I not only never made, but agreed with you over.

On stating it as fact that municipalities have far, far better standards of living than reserves I noted the obvious solution is to convert reserves to municipalities. I stated THAT move would be fought tooth and nail by those living on reserves. I wish to heaven to be wrong on that count, but I most certainly have discussed this with people there and it's not a welcomed solution. Nobody yet has explained to me why though and I'm gonna keep championing it until someone can point out a problem with it to me,

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

... World Champion...?

Brilliantly constructed argument that the professionally offended would do well to listen to and understand. There is a clear context in which being offended makes sense and outside of that context you end up doing damage to the cause you were championing.

Under the banner of equality, the magazine writers created a problem where there wasn't one previously. If anything, the Spiderwoman drawing championed equality. And now people will think twice before drawing Spiderwoman doing the same things Spiderman does - what a great day for equality!

You're just going to keep arguing so I don't see the point of this. But I'll rebut some things.

You go and tell the family it doesn't matter that their son died.

My mother was choked and raped in my parents bed by an intruder when I was not yet 3 years old. The defensive wounds on her body were said by the authorities to be from her struggling until the very end.

Also I live with a trained UFC fighter, who was a champion in Southern California. I asked him this and you fight until you black out, you do not stop because you're getting choked, if anything it makes you more desperate.

You keep citing the Legal right to something as if that matters to me. It doesn't, I'm stating unequivocally that what they did was wrong, it doesn't matter what the law says. Just because a law says you can do something does not make it a just law.

It is their laws, it is the laws of the state. The police are a part of that state and they are sent by the owners of the state to enforce those laws. We do not have a democracy in the US anymore. This is like defending the SS because Hitler told them what to do, they have no defense.

We're done here, we will never agree because we have lived completely different lives. I understand that and I hope you do as well.

YT:
After diagnosis with hemangiosarcoma, Wallace was given 2 weeks to 3 months without chemo. Here Wallace is celebrating his 11th birthday 7 months post diagnosis chemo free! These were all toys mailed to Wallace by people around the country who loved him. To help us help other dogs in need, Wallace's book can be purchased here - www.WallaceThePitBull.com This true story, written by Jim Gorant, takes you on Wallace's journey from unwanted shelter dog to Champion Frisbee Dog! Wallace passed away a year after diagnosis on 8/23/2013. Long Live Wallace the Pit Bull!

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Gassing them was considered the worst part of what he did by most, agreed he did evil for decades, and that equated to more than a single (or campaign) of gassing, but as far as single events go, it was the worst.
As I said, just give ISIS time, they are more hard line and eager to kill than Saddam seemed, and on the rise fast. If YOU want to champion ISIS as a lesser evil, you should bother to study what THEY are doing now, with an insanely smaller group and less power than Saddam, if they gain power and people, I see them as likely being worse.
American policy should concern anyone who's discussing it, which is what we've been doing. If American policy doesn't matter to you, why are you not on your way to the Sudan or Congo to remove those dictators that are committing genocide yourself? When discussing what America's military did and does, American policy matters.
All Iraqi's live in fear today, as do their neighboring countries.
Saddam wasn't 1/10th the 'evil dictator' Pol Pot or Hitler were, and was never a threat to anyone but his neighbors. If you really think he was (1) I must assume you spent the 90's in Iraq trying to assassinate him, right? and (2) you really need to read some history.

I don't think you actually read up on the Al Anfal campaign if you wave it away as just Saddam gassing his own people. That was the least of the horrors he inflicted on the Kurds. If you don't care I can't make you, but I'll not idly ignore your ignorant claims it was less than what it was. ISIS hasn't even come close to it yet, and they'd need an incredible increase in their abilities and support to even try.

If you want to champion Saddam as the lesser evil, at least bother to study what he did more closely first. I'd also ask your opinion on Abu Ghraib and Fallujah.

As for American policy, I repeat my complete lack of concern for it when forming my opinion of what is good or better. I don't care whether America is some white knight or not, I care that Saddam gone is better than Saddam in power. My assessment of that doesn't depend on why America claims to have done it, nor on America's post actions or dealings with Saddam. Saddam gone leaves Shia and Kurdish Iraqis no longer leaving under fear of genocide(better than 60% of all Iraqis there). It leaves Saddams neighbouring countries no longer fearing another war of expansion and aggression from him.

And your on the right track with Hitler and Pol Pot when classing Saddam. Read about all he's done and you'll find they'd be right at home with him.

I'm sorry, Maru invented this sub-genre, and is still champion.

Thanks And yes, it does. I saw it in my yt feed, but hadn't watched it yet.

Red Bull Racing are the reigning champions, but after the huge problems faced by all the Renault powered teams people are wondering if they will even finish the first race on Sunday! In fact people are wondering if anyone will finish, or if it will be a count back after the last car stops on track to allocate points!!!

Anyway, I don't normally watch a lot of tv, but this weekend plan to be glued to the set

*Retained for....

"violent and outspoken when confronted with blind insanity"...you must pitch a fight club fit when you pass a mirror.

You really do not have a clue...and cannot have a clue. You ARE an offense...but as easily walked away from without an afterthought as a fart in public.

For all your ranting and posturing, you are a frightened child with a man sounding voice trying to be less alone, less ignorant, and less lost...and yes much of that can be said of us all save your volume...much more the pity of you.

You are not a champion. not a voice from on high, not a beacon of light. Should you really desire or aspire to be, go work on yourself, silently, in silence...and good luck.

...now I'm going to follow my own advice.

You can sign me up @bareboards2. If there were some broad agreement on terminology I would switch to gender neutral language instantly. Fucking sick of it.

Coincidentally I was thinking about this just this afternoon, because luckily I have nothing better to do at work than stand around contemplating gender politics; pleased and proud as I am of genderqueer crusaders trying to wrestle pronouns into shape, I've been generally unwilling to join them. For fuck's sake, I spend enough time every day arguing about the excess syllable in the number sev, I can't afford to multiply that by every sentence with a person in it.

Singularising plural pronouns is offensive to me on a practical and aesthetic level, Spivak's no damn good, you've got your zes and your hirs and your hens, it's a pain in the ass but as soon as we get some consensus and momentum it's going to be cool.

Can't see that feminism really has anything to do with all this, well, I have trouble seeing that feminism has anything to do with anything. Not to go all Trancecoach here with male world problems but they're similarly told that to be professional they have to knot a piece of cloth around their neck for no reason or slice the hair off their face every day for no fucking reason. The situation is that we have a bullshit tribal culture with endless absurd customs and arbitrary rituals which is perpetuated by morons.

So we should always be rationalising - language, culture, behaviour, expectations.

Gender neutrality is obviously the way to go. If you get shoved in a box you don't become the champion of the box and work to make your box the best box it can be; you break out and start beating your captors over the head with box fragments.

I don't give a fuck about women's problems; I don't give a fuck about women, but I'm glad to consider anyone who stops wearing makeup a part of my team because I don't wear makeup for the same reason I don't shave my stupid face.

Anyway that was my choggie impression for the day. Too much caffeine, not enough sleep, not enough time spent bathing in the blood of my enemies.

Whomever discovered that beaver anal gland juice could be extracted for consumption is a true champion of industry (and imagination)!