Writing an angry letter to the paper!

[miss.myra]

It feels really good to call someone on their shit and to formulate it all with words. A great debate, especially about politics, can get me really excited.


...I really hope it gets in!

[dapimpstress]

u wrote an angry letter? what did it say? to whom? concerning what?


lol.. maybe im jus outta tha loop, but i do agree, its tight to use ur brains and out-do someone who thought they were right in the first place,... and weren't.

[miss.myra]

It was to the Georgia Straght

Basically this whiny idiot was trashing Vancouver's mayor and contradicted himself. Naturally, I felt compelled to point out his idiocy, and back up our mayor (I think he's doing a great job.)

[dapimpstress]

Awesome... way to be.. im BOUT that kinda shit.. i mean when people are just flat out spewing shit through the media that is not true its just so frustrating, and must be set str8....


like for example, when the NYtimes put out the first article bout WMD (weapons of mass distruction) being in Iraq, they said they WERE there... later, once they saw there weren't, they ran an article (backpage nonetheless... but at least they ran it..) apologizing for their incorrectness...

maybe this fool with the Georgia, will get it right next time huh?

[Carrie]

go myra.

the georgia straight has horrible idiotic writers.

i hardly read that thing for the articles.. more of . whats going on ..

[thumper]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

It was to the Georgia Straght

Basically this whiny idiot was trashing Vancouver's mayor and contradicted himself. Naturally, I felt compelled to point out his idiocy, and back up our mayor (I think he's doing a great job.)

So what exactly did he say and what did you say?

[cheeseburger]

*random cknw quote*

Come on, get on with it

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by thumper

So what exactly did he say and what did you say?

In short, the writer felt that Larry Campbell failed at extending deomcracy in the city of Vancouver because he didn't do a good enough job of convincing voters to side with wanting to change the electoral system in the city to the ward system in a recent plebiscite the city had.

In short, I felt that the whole idea of a 'democracy' and a 'plebiscite' is to allow the people to forumate their own decisions. His point pretty much contradicted itself right there. It's not the mayor's job to tell people what they have to vote for in a 'democracy'.

[dapimpstress]

werd.

[Carrie]

is this from a weekly article writer.. or some random guy that paid to get his shit in the paper.?

[miss.myra]

This guy is paid to write for the straight...

He's just a whiny lefty usually, and usually annoys me, but this time really took the cake.

The straight should just hire me!

[Carrie]

i'd pay for the straight if they hired you!

[thumper]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

In short, the writer felt that Larry Campbell failed at extending deomcracy in the city of Vancouver because he didn't do a good enough job of convincing voters to side with wanting to change the electoral system in the city to the ward system in a recent plebiscite the city had.

In short, I felt that the whole idea of a 'democracy' and a 'plebiscite' is to allow the people to forumate their own decisions. His point pretty much contradicted itself right there. It's not the mayor's job to tell people what they have to vote for in a 'democracy'.

You sound like a Poli Sci major. Don't you guys think it's a headache arguing with the left, the right, the norms, the communists, etc. etc. all the time? Politics is the second oldest profession, which has a lot in common with the first oldest :sheepfuck

As long as their is someone to control the resources, he can be corrupted. That power should never be granted in the first place. While democracy sounds great and all, the thing is too bureaucratic I think, and at the end of the day not everyone is satisfied.

As you probably know, the definition of politics is to redistribute scarce resources amongst your society. My solution is to scrap it entirely: :) Libertarianism :) A taxless society where everyone is responsible for getting their own shit together and no one takes your money and decides who deserves it more and decides how they can spend better than you can. That's the true way to control your destiny.

Why don't you put your powers toward writing a letter pushing for that? :054:

[thumper]

delete repost

[-ff-]

I'm only medium on Larry...

He's a big supporter of the Olympics and the RAV (actually, he's shit on ALL of the transit issues. Watch for fare increases comming this spring)

[Gusto]

I remember there was an article in the Straight once about my workplace, the union attempts here, how bad it is, etc. I won't go into the story or whether I agree with it or not. I found it funny, though, because someone wrote on the stall of a bathroom here, "you work in a sweatshop, check out the georgia straight for details".

If I'm reading this on the bathroom stall at work, I probably already work here, and I don't need some piece of shit article to tell me about it, because I've witnessed it firsthand. I wish people would form their own opinions sometimes instead of just listening to what newspapers or television tells them.

I guess this isn't really related, except it involves the Straight. Meh.

[Gusto]

PS. Nice work, Myra, I wanna read what you wrote.

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by thumper

You sound like a Poli Sci major. Don't you guys think it's a headache arguing with the left, the right, the norms, the communists, etc. etc. all the time? Politics is the second oldest profession, which has a lot in common with the first oldest :sheepfuck

I'm not a poli sci major. I'm not even a student atm, when I was, my major was not poli sci. I work a real job at a faceless coproration :p. Maybe it's a headache arguing politics, but I don't mind having a rational discussion about it every once in awhile.

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by thumper

My solution is to scrap it entirely: Libertarianism A taxless society where everyone is responsible for getting their own shit together and no one takes your money and decides who deserves it more and decides how they can spend better than you can. That's the true way to control your destiny.

Why don't you put your powers toward writing a letter pushing for that? :054:

Umm, because we live in a society that supports equality and liberty? Because we think equality of opportunity is a good thing? "Liberty" doesnt really mean anything unless people are actually in a position to use it. When you start talking about freedom you have to start asking what kind of people are free to do what kinds of things. Your 'solution' presuposes that everyone HAS money to better their position with. In Canada, you'll find, most people believe that increasing some (wealthy) people's freedom of one kind, at the expense of many (less wealthy) people's freedom (defined as their access to resourses and opportunities in society) is unfair. Libertarianism creates structural poverty, concentrating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. There would be no public education or health at all in a truly libertarian society. Even top Libertarian philopophers like Robert Nozick are willing to concede that for Libertariansism to work, there would have to be a one-time redistribution of wealth equally across society, so that everyone within the libertarian framework would start on a level playing field.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Umm, because we live in a society that supports equality and liberty? Because we think equality of opportunity is a good thing? "Liberty" doesnt really mean anything unless people are actually in a position to use it. When you start talking about freedom you have to start asking what kind of people are free to do what kinds of things. Your 'solution' presuposes that everyone HAS money to better their position with. In Canada, you'll find, most people believe that increasing some (wealthy) people's freedom of one kind, at the expense of many (less wealthy) people's freedom (defined as their access to resourses and opportunities in society) is unfair. Libertarianism creates structural poverty, concentrating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. There would be no public education or health at all in a truly libertarian society. Even top Libertarian philopophers like Robert Nozick are willing to concede that for Libertariansism to work, there would have to be a one-time redistribution of wealth equally across society, so that everyone within the libertarian framework would start on a level playing field.

Equality can also be construed as Communism, but that’s another topic. I hear what you’re saying, that liberty is useless without the means and power. And in this case, money is the power. Following that doctrine, to maximize one’s power and really to exercise maximum control over one’s life, you should be able to keep ALL of your own money.

As for your idea about Libertarianism resembling something out of Oliver Twist, I really have to disagree with you. You sound quite educated, so I won’t dumb this down. The way things currently work the gov’t coerces us to give them money so they can redistribute it in ways that “serve our best interests,” like public transportation, health care, public education, etc. In this way, the government acts as a monopoly. Here’s Encarta’s definition:

Economic situation in which only a single seller or producer supplies a commodity or a service. For a monopoly to be effective, there must be no practical substitutes for the product or service sold, and no serious threat of the entry of a competitor into the market. This enables the seller to control the price.

And we all know the nature of monopolies are that they are large, bureaucratic, slow, expensive, stagnated, and sell an inferior product. I think public education illustrates this best. In 150 years the pedagogy has not changed at all. The teacher still stands there to lecture while the kids sit quietly at their desks and they take tests once in a while and the teachers will mark these tests. This surely cannot be the optimal way for everyone to learn or measure human potential. But the reality is, the teaching establishment has no incentive to realize this because they will never lose their customer base (taxpayers) and they can even find ways to squeeze more money (child daycare at school, too many specialists, etc.); contrast that with a free market situation where if you don’t like what you got you can move onto something else. Competition will always render the better product and at a lower price, therefore more people will be able to afford it.

Just imagine if there was only one restaurant in town. They could serve you burnt toast with puke on top at 40 bucks a pop and all your grumbling would be for naught because you would always have to come back to that place if you wanted something to eat. And that’s what public education is, since there is no alternative.

Aside from this, government sanctioned education by its very nature will always be subject to political winds. So whatever is hip with the social engineers, that’s what they’ll implement, regardless if that is something you readily agree with. One day it’s fascism the next day it’s CAPP. The only reason I bring this up is because my little cousin is going starting grade one and part of the curriculum is the book “Heather Has Two Mommies.” Maybe some people here support that stuff, and maybe some don’t, but the point is that as long as public education exists and it’s legislated by law that you MUST attend, my cousin’s family has no choice in the kind of values that she will be forced to learn. They separated Church and State long ago, it’s time they did the same for education.

[Senior]

Was the letter you wrote in response to Charlie Smith's "COPE Drop Kicks Democracy?" If so I think where he's coming from is that COPE seemed to take it for granted that the plebicite would pass and in doing so missed a huge opportunity. For starters it would seem in hindsight that it would have made sense to have added the Wards plebicite to the next election ballot ensuring a much higher voter turnout and saving money. Both of these factors worked against the plebicite as low turnouts favour the NPA and the plebicite suffered a backlash from people that were pissed off about the cost. The NPA however did not take this issue lightly and started organizing and fundraising months before COPE did. The NPA put together the Knowards committee and were able to work off a budget in the range of $200,000. This allowed them to hire on a proffesional phone bank to spread their dissinformation along with other approaches such as illegal advertisements on plebicite day (CKNW and Chinese language newspapers) as well as giving away full pizza's outside of polling stations (wouldn't you rather a full pizza than just a slice?). In short on this particular issue COPE leadership dropped the ball and let down a lot of people that have been working to make our electoral system more democratic for the last 30 years. This doesn't mean that COPE hasn't done well in other respects and presonally I like Larry and will vote/campaign for him again.

As for the Georgia Straight I can agree the writing isn't always great but compared to other local options it's a step ahead. Also unlike every other main stream publication in Vancouver it does present a different view of things.

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by Senior

Was the letter you wrote in response to Charlie Smith's "COPE Drop Kicks Democracy?" If so I think where he's coming from is that COPE seemed to take it for granted that the plebicite would pass and in doing so missed a huge opportunity. For starters it would seem in hindsight that it would have made sense to have added the Wards plebicite to the next election ballot ensuring a much higher voter turnout and saving money. Both of these factors worked against the plebicite as low turnouts favour the NPA and the plebicite suffered a backlash from people that were pissed off about the cost. The NPA however did not take this issue lightly and started organizing and fundraising months before COPE did. The NPA put together the Knowards committee and were able to work off a budget in the range of $200,000. This allowed them to hire on a proffesional phone bank to spread their dissinformation along with other approaches such as illegal advertisements on plebicite day (CKNW and Chinese language newspapers) as well as giving away full pizza's outside of polling stations (wouldn't you rather a full pizza than just a slice?). In short on this particular issue COPE leadership dropped the ball and let down a lot of people that have been working to make our electoral system more democratic for the last 30 years. This doesn't mean that COPE hasn't done well in other respects and presonally I like Larry and will vote/campaign for him again.

As for the Georgia Straight I can agree the writing isn't always great but compared to other local options it's a step ahead. Also unlike every other main stream publication in Vancouver it does present a different view of things.

Yes, but no matter what, the responsibility on wether or not you're going to vote in the first place, let alone WHAT you want to vote is in the hands of the people themselves.

Also, this seemes like an appropriate time to bring up the plebescite if they wanted to see wards implemented by the time the next election went through.

I personally voted no to wards, and it wasn't because of any kind of pizza or election day ad influence.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Yes, but no matter what, the responsibility on wether or not you're going to vote in the first place, let alone WHAT you want to vote is in the hands of the people themselves.

Also, this seemes like an appropriate time to bring up the plebescite if they wanted to see wards implemented by the time the next election went through.

I personally voted no to wards, and it wasn't because of any kind of pizza or election day ad influence.

I'm glad the bribes of pizza didn't work on you! Seriously I might have been swayed from voting yes.

All sarcasm aside though, campaigns do effect elections, thus Karl Rove and his "give me 500 million and it doesn't matter what Bush says or does I can get him elected." An early poll showed 58% support for Wards that some how melted to 46% come plebicite day. Clearly Knowards was more effective at pursuading voters and pulling the vote. As for the radio and news paper ads day of the plebicite Sam Sullivan as chairman of Knowards could lose his seat on council and face a 6 year ban on holding public office.

[-ff-]

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this, because I remember your post on 'immigration' and the fundamentally biggoted and stubborn nature that undlay it, but what the hell. I'm eating lunch and have a few minutes.

Originally Posted by thumper

Equality can also be construed as Communism, but that’s another topic. I hear what you’re saying, that liberty is useless without the means and power. And in this case, money is the power. Following that doctrine, to maximize one’s power and really to exercise maximum control over one’s life, you should be able to keep ALL of your own money.

You are contradicting yourself here. If you recognize that liberty is useless without the means and power, and you recognize that money and power are equated, then you must recognize that in a system which no efforts are made by society to redisribute this power (even if only slightly - we're talking income tax here, not a state run economy) you have created rule by the rich, and disempowered the majority of your society's members. Private education (the merits of which we'll get to in a moment), under your system, would only be avaiable to those who can afford it. People who come from poor families can thus only afford low quality education. This becomes systemic, for their lower education prevents them from earning enough to give their kids a good education, and so on. Even Milton Friedman (libertarian economist, and author of Capitalism and Freedom - look it up) is willing to admit that state funding is required for education, and that it has to come from income tax. His suggestion on how to set the system up (the voucher system with privatized delivery of service) is a little closer to what you are suggesting, but still recognizes the core need for public funding.

Originally Posted by thumper

And we all know the nature of monopolies are that they are large, bureaucratic, slow, expensive, stagnated, and sell an inferior product. I think public education illustrates this best. In 150 years the pedagogy has not changed at all. The teacher still stands there to lecture while the kids sit quietly at their desks and they take tests once in a while and the teachers will mark these tests. This surely cannot be the optimal way for everyone to learn or measure human potential. But the reality is, the teaching establishment has no incentive to realize this because they will never lose their customer base (taxpayers) and they can even find ways to squeeze more money (child daycare at school, too many specialists, etc.); contrast that with a free market situation where if you don’t like what you got you can move onto something else. Competition will always render the better product and at a lower price, therefore more people will be able to afford it.

There are certainly ways our education system can be improved - I agree with you there. But I would flat out deny that 'pedagogy has not changed in 150 years.' Violence is not permitted in schools for the purpose of discipline. The subjects taught, and methods of teaching (including eliciting of participation through student led classes, projects/presentations, and seminar like situations) are evolving. I have a couple of friends taking educaiton right now who would love to tell you you are full of shit. Moreover, I dispute your claim privatization of educational services would bring out a magical diversity in educational opportunity. Take this example - I went through the public education system, and was able to attend a minischool which was heavily student focussed, with participation and critical reflection heavily emphasized. By contrast, I know a number of people who went to private schools in this city. Take a look at the private school curricula- they mirror the major public institutions almost perfectly and moreover, put an emphasis on these 'traditional' modes of learning you are so derisive of - discipline, and hard studying with the aim of achieving high marks on standardized tests. If private delivery allows for so much creativity, why isnt it happening? I dont think you even understand the basics of how our 'monopoly' of education works - curricula and methods are dictated by the school board which is democratically elected, and represents the will of parents in the area. You should understand this, since you make reference to the teaching of 'heather has two mommies' and must thus be aware of the moves by surrey school boards to block such material. I also dispute your claim that the cost of education will drop in a free market situation to make high quality education avaiable to everyone. Sure, it might drop in certain schools - those with inadequate teaching materials and low quality teachers - but how will this benifit society? The wealthier elements of society will have access to the best of everything, once again reinforcing social stratification. High quality education is a right, not a priviledge. One of the reasons we have public education is to try to create a level playing field so that all students coming out of highschool will have an equal oporunity to succeed in life.

Originally Posted by thumper

Aside from this, government sanctioned education by its very nature will always be subject to political winds. So whatever is hip with the social engineers, that’s what they’ll implement, regardless if that is something you readily agree with. One day it’s fascism the next day it’s CAPP. The only reason I bring this up is because my little cousin is going starting grade one and part of the curriculum is the book “Heather Has Two Mommies.” Maybe some people here support that stuff, and maybe some don’t, but the point is that as long as public education exists and it’s legislated by law that you MUST attend, my cousin’s family has no choice in the kind of values that she will be forced to learn. They separated Church and State long ago, it’s time they did the same for education.

If by 'political winds' you mean 'the will of canadian society as democratically voiced, and supported by our rights as enshrined in the constiution' then yes, I agree with you 100%. This is the way things should be. The teaching of books about same sex families, while you might not like it, reflects the reality of our society. Canada is diverse, and tollerance MUST be taught, otherwise violence (there have been enough examples of anti-gay attacks in the news recently) tends to result. One of the purposes of our education system is to help teach children values that reflect our society as a whole. Like it or not, Canada is a diverse and tollerant society. Clearly you have problems with that, but you are going to have to learn to live with it.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by -ff-

You are contradicting yourself here. If you recognize that liberty is useless without the means and power, and you recognize that money and power are equated, then you must recognize that in a system which no efforts are made by society to redisribute this power (even if only slightly - we're talking income tax here, not a state run economy) you have created rule by the rich, and disempowered the majority of your society's members. Private education (the merits of which we'll get to in a moment), under your system, would only be avaiable to those who can afford it. People who come from poor families can thus only afford low quality education. This becomes systemic, for their lower education prevents them from earning enough to give their kids a good education, and so on. Even Milton Friedman (libertarian economist, and author of Capitalism and Freedom - look it up) is willing to admit that state funding is required for education, and that it has to come from income tax. His suggestion on how to set the system up (the voucher system with privatized delivery of service) is a little closer to what you are suggesting, but still recognizes the core need for public funding.

There are two components to this statement of yours: The philosophy and the reality.

Firstly, I don’t think I contradict myself. As a libertarian I believe that the purpose of the government is to protect private property and to enforce basic laws, and nothing more. I never signed on to pay for the education of my neighbor’s kids or to pave roads that I will never use or to make sure drug addicts have clean needles. While I agree that liberty is essential, it’s a bit of a logical jump for me to see how this extends to “freedom for everyone to have the same opportunities and to take care of everyone.” This is a very slippery slope because it’s not just “free” education we’re talking about here, but health care as well. What next, social security and a universal dental plan? This is where you and I diverge. I believe the individual’s rights and the right to keep his own wealth will always trump whatever designs the social engineers and government bureaucrats will have on Society. Fighting for equality in all facets of life for all people, while wasting tremendous tax dollars, is as unwinnable as the War on Terrorism. Sorry, but we’re heading towards a form of Communism here.

Second, you make it sound like people are incapable of taking care of themselves without government intervention. Yes education is very important and we wouldn’t want a single person to miss out, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should shell out money to make sure no one slips through the cracks while creating a monopoly in the process. Food is just as essential, and yet we don’t collect taxes for a ‘universal food plan’ do we? The fact is no one starves to death in this society and they don’t need the government to lift a finger to make sure that doesn’t happen. However if you want an example of the alternative you could try reading up on how disastrous communal farms in China were. Essentially, when things become “free” or heavily subsidized people tend to abuse it, just look at public washrooms. And the famine that China experienced speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by -ff-

There are certainly ways our education system can be improved - I agree with you there. But I would flat out deny that 'pedagogy has not changed in 150 years.' Violence is not permitted in schools for the purpose of discipline. The subjects taught, and methods of teaching (including eliciting of participation through student led classes, projects/presentations, and seminar like situations) are evolving. I have a couple of friends taking educaiton right now who would love to tell you you are full of shit. Moreover, I dispute your claim privatization of educational services would bring out a magical diversity in educational opportunity. Take this example - I went through the public education system, and was able to attend a minischool which was heavily student focussed, with participation and critical reflection heavily emphasized. By contrast, I know a number of people who went to private schools in this city. Take a look at the private school curricula- they mirror the major public institutions almost perfectly and moreover, put an emphasis on these 'traditional' modes of learning you are so derisive of - discipline, and hard studying with the aim of achieving high marks on standardized tests. If private delivery allows for so much creativity, why isnt it happening? I dont think you even understand the basics of how our 'monopoly' of education works - curricula and methods are dictated by the school board which is democratically elected, and represents the will of parents in the area. You should understand this, since you make reference to the teaching of 'heather has two mommies' and must thus be aware of the moves by surrey school boards to block such material. I also dispute your claim that the cost of education will drop in a free market situation to make high quality education avaiable to everyone. Sure, it might drop in certain schools - those with inadequate teaching materials and low quality teachers - but how will this benifit society? The wealthier elements of society will have access to the best of everything, once again reinforcing social stratification. High quality education is a right, not a priviledge. One of the reasons we have public education is to try to create a level playing field so that all students coming out of highschool will have an equal oporunity to succeed in life.

I’m gonna summarize your points if you don’t mind:

“Pedagogy has indeed changed”

Well like you said, such changes have to be authorized at the top by the lurching la-di-da “Democratically-elected school board” which moves at the rate of glaciation. Even then, they will only respond to political pressure. In 150 years education has not moved out of the classroom. There are as many learning styles as there are people, and so do you think that the model of sitting patiently while information is fed to you is really what stokes everyone’s interest? At the moment boys are being diagnosed with ADHD at three times the rate of girls because they’re too rambunctious. Are we to really believe that all these boys have a mental illness? Or could it be that they were never meant to spend 6 hours in a classroom, 5 days a week (with the various vacations), for 12 years of their life? People learn in variety of different ways, whether through the solitary activities of CD ROMS or books, to chatting people up at coffee houses or libraries.

“Free market won’t promote diversity in education”

The problem is that private schools must have the same core curriculum as the public schools because it’s a legal mandate. If society were truly libertarian, they could easily enhance their curriculums and make them unique and tailored to each and every individual, like a performing arts school or a hard math and sciences school. Plus the one-third of my wages that the government garnishes, I will be able to keep and so I can shop around.

“School board is democratically elected”

So what if I’m not on board with this bandwagon? Just because the majority decides something does not mean it applies to me, it doesn’t even mean they get what they want. Often it’s a compromise. Let the families judge for themselves what they think is a good education by opening up a free market.

“Free market doesn’t make a high quality education available to everyone”

First we must acknowledge that the free market does indeed lower the price and increase the quality of the product. To give you a little case study, compare the automotive industries of Eastern and Western Germany. We’ve all heard of Audi’s, BMW’s, and Mercedes. But what about the Trabant? Suffice to say it was one of the worst cars ever to come out of the state owned factories in Eastern Germany that everyone was forced to drive and it cost a fortune. Sure an Audi isn’t the same as a Merc, but neither of those were as bad as the Trabant. Why is it so necessary that everyone drive the same car?

“Some people will be disadvantaged”

The idea is not to lower everyone to the same level to achieve ‘sameness.’ Even if such a statement were true, is it fair if I have more money and my kid is a musical genius and I want to send him to a school that focuses on Music but I can’t because such a school isn’t allowed to exist (because it’s private)? Under your banner of “fairness” the world could lose out on the next Mozart or Beethoven.

“We must cultivate a level playing field for everyone”

Like the last point, not only does it give a one-size-fits all paradigm, but it also has the effect of lowering the standard if anything.

Originally Posted by -ff-

If by 'political winds' you mean 'the will of canadian society as democratically voiced, and supported by our rights as enshrined in the constiution' then yes, I agree with you 100%. This is the way things should be. The teaching of books about same sex families, while you might not like it, reflects the reality of our society. Canada is diverse, and tollerance MUST be taught, otherwise violence (there have been enough examples of anti-gay attacks in the news recently) tends to result. One of the purposes of our education system is to help teach children values that reflect our society as a whole. Like it or not, Canada is a diverse and tollerant society. Clearly you have problems with that, but you are going to have to learn to live with it.

Again democracy doesn’t necessarily mean it applies to many others or even me. And when was the last time we had a democratic plebiscite on the school curriculum? By and large, the Ministry of Education makes up the curriculum and only if they fuck up big time do parents raise a fuss. Other than that, we have very little control.

I’m also a bit disturbed that you think it’s completely alright for the government to dictate what our values should be, as if they were the head to the body. You don’t realize it, but you’re a fascist. I suppose you’re trying to sound righteous here with your “free to be you and me” tone, but how would you react if they started teaching about Jesus and handing out Bibles? I can guarantee you that the liberals in this country would start throwing Molotov cocktails and there would be a huge outcry.

My point is promoting homosexuality, having condom-dispensing machines, and giving out pamphlets that show girls how to service their man are not values shared by a sizable proportion of the population and yet it’s being forced on them. And at the same time, people aren’t forced to go to church are they? So let’s be fair, the best we can hope for is that we stop forcing our beliefs on other people.

And lastly, yes, I do have a problem with “tolerance” and the fight against all forms of Discrimination (moral relativism) under the guise of universal brotherhood and all that communist crap because the alternative would 'beez hating.' As a society we're so off course without a compass that what was bad is now good and what was good is now bad.

Through clever nomenclature a rifle-toter may be a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter." A movie may be "smut" or "adult entertainment." A wily change in labels transforms "debauchery" into civil-rights-parade-worthy "bisexuality."

I'm sorry if anyone is offended by these classifications, but before someone accuses me of being Hitler you have to admit that these changes have taken place, and have been accomplished rather quickly, and I believe beyond what is organic.

So don’t tell me that Discrimination is the new thought crime. It’s a right, just like freedom of association, the ability to see what is different and what is alike. What is black or white; good or bad; moral and immoral. That’s no longer allowed now?

This is one of your innate human functions, to decide what you like, dislike, love, or hate. No one should be able to compel you to love something (massive third world immigration: "multi-culturalism") or hate something (nationalism).

Anyway that was a long ass rant even by my standards. Forthcoming responses will be presented in the morning.