Canada is now the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage. Yep...those crazy Cannucks...I knew I liked you guys up North.

I wholeheartedly agree. Without starting a political debate I'm just going to say Canadians are good people. We should be following their example.

Where ya been, spiff?

Batman Begins and Charlie & the Chocolate Factory have been busting my butt. We're just finishing up Charlie this week. Phew! It's been crazy here at work. Glad to be back "home" though.

It's nice to see a North American country make a rational decision.

Spain just legalized it as well.

I don't want to get political here..... well, OK, I will just a bit:

I heard on the radio yesterday that Spain legalized gay marriages, and the Spanish Prime Minister was quoted as saying: "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries driven... by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."

I had to chuckle out loud when I realized that Spain was ahead of the U.S. in Freedom and Equality. Weren't those supposed to be THE American ideals that our country were founded on?

Seems like those haven't been priorities in this Administration.

The Libertarian in me wants to SCREAM at people for being happy about the "government sanctioned approval" of gay marriage.

Why would someone be outraged by this ?

Rather than simply answer the question - perhaps someone would like to hazard a guess ... ???

Because the government shouldn't be involved in a relationship of two people? But there's still the tax, inheritance, and adoption aspects of it. So while perhaps the government shouldn't be invovled, it already is.

You nailed it .... This "gay marriage" idea, and government approval is just another way government controls our lives. Quite frankly, Why the HELL should anyone have to get some government a$$hole's permission to be married ?

Reform the tax system so it is simple for everybody, whether one is single or married, eliminate estate taxes, and get government out of the business of licensing marriage.

That would be a start.

I completely agree mr. sub, but until that happens I'll be very happy to be treated equal. Thanks.

Spiff - The irony of this is, this may actually lead to some real reform in the way moneys are handled in the government.

For example, in the current system, moneys are passed to one's spouse with no estate taxes.

There will be a day when the multibillionaires figure out a way around estate taxes through this little loophole.

And I understand your wanting to be equal - but the mere categorizing this as "gay marriage" sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" laws of the past.

Until we as a society desire real freedom for everybody, these types of laws will be used to further make distinctions on societal groups.

As far as I know most of these "new laws" are not actually new laws, so much as they're simply changing the wording, or understanding of the current laws and allowing two men or two women to be married. The separate but equal arguement is the same one we (gays and lesbians) have been using to say that "civil partnerships" aren't enough. It the same arguement that lead to equal marriage rights in Massachusetts.

One day the govt. may step in and insist that if you have sons AND daughters, that you MUST have a three bedroom home or they will take the children away....

.....naw, that could NEVER happen.


Of course, if it did, would the next step be an audit of a prospective family at the time of conception?

Returning to the original intent of this thread; It appears that the Canadian Govt is a bit more based on common sense, and the intrinsic freedoms of the contries inhabitants. The populace is given a little credit for having the basic intellegence to govern their own private lives.

We, on the other hand will be protected from ouselves even if it causes us irrepairable harm.

Canada's government believes in more freedom ? Not even close. If you don't like the health care system, you are screwed. You still pay for it. Top tax rate ? over 50%.

Business regulations are horrendous unless you are a major corporation.

On the bright side, Canada's people are a blast.

Spiff - I know you will never agree with me on this, and I understand why. You have your desire for your ability to be married in the eyes of the government.

This new set of laws (whether by judicial ruling or elected representatives) will allow you to leave an inheritance to your same sex spouse tax free. You will also get to receive your spouse's Social Security benefits should he pass on, along with other benefits.

Your agenda is to have the government "fix" a problem of inequity as you see it. This inequity was caused by government in the first place.

My agenda is to see the government get out of EVERYONE's life.

For example - this new set of laws does not protect the right of someone who wants to stay single. That person gets no tax breaks, no ability to pass on to someone he or she chooses an estate tax free, and cannot say "I want my friend Joe to get my Social Security and my estate with no tax liability" and have it done. Of course, if he marries Joe, then he CAN pass on these benefits.

Our governments - state, federal, and local have co-opted marriage in order to be able to control a little more of our behavior. This "gay marriage" will add to that, rather than create more freedom for everyone.

Each time the government passes a law like this, a particular group feels good, because those in that group gain.

When you think this through, Married people (which has always been defined as being between a man and a woman) have long gotten benefits denied to single people. Instead of fixing this true inequity with real reform, we have expanded the term "married" to include man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Now ANYONE in those groups gets preferential treatment over single people.

That is not justice - that is making another voting bloc happy with a "victory" at the expense of others.

Yup, guess it just goes to proove that the grass, really is, greener.....

We have more in common than we originally thought!

Thanx, I feel much better, now!

LMAO ... I spend a lot of time in Ontario. Canadians, like us Yanks, LOVE to tell you every problem their government has.

Give me three Canadians, a good martini bar, and we will solve BOTH country's problems in three hours ...

Great Idea!!

Gotta hurry though.....We don't want to go thru this all again on the fourth!!

Once was more than enough!!

By the way Spiff, I'm totally with you. I think it's wonderful that this step is finally being taken. Maybe we're at a tipping point.

>>Quite frankly, Why the HELL should anyone have to get some government a$$hole's permission to be married ?

Because the governments perform most of the marriages and essentially all of the same-sex marriages -- not churches. The churches up here are generally not big on same-sex relationships so the government's definition of marriage really does matter.

Bridgman - Churches are nothing more than organizations formed by people without the government's involvement.

If you want to start the "Church of Bridgman", who is to stop you ? Heck, If you are any good, I may join ! ...

You say "governments perform most of the marriages, and essentially all same sex marriages" ... What you are saying here is you approve of the government controlling behavior. The government has no business deciding WHO should get married.

As for government's control of marriage, I understand I am bigtime in the minority here, because it sounds like I am opposing gay marriage. I am not.

I am opposed to a system which rewards societal behavior. As someone who has been married for 16 years, I have some questions that answers to would be fascinating.

1. Why should only married people get to leave an estate to someone tax free ?

2. Why should only married people get a more expensive benefits package from a corporation than do singles ?

3. Why should married people get a lower tax rate than do single people ?

4. Why should only married people get the benefit of Social Security benefits, for which the taxpayer pays, for moneys his or her spouse has accrued, when that spouse dies ?

Gay marriage government approval establishes even more firmly than before that:

Government can decide who may or may not marry. Think about it - in a different political climate, if government can "approve" gay marriage in 2005, in 2015, they could outlaw it. It was none of their damn business in the first place. Get rid of all the artificial and unfair benefits of "government marriage", and marriage would be what it should, a commitment between two people, gay or straight.

Craig, I'm not arguing in favour of the government controlling who gets married... I'm saying that the government IS doing the marrying, ie the marriages are civil ceremonies not religious ceremonies.

>>I am opposed to a system which rewards societal behavior. As someone who has been married for 16 years, I have some questions that answers to would be fascinating.

Not sure I agree with you here. Our societies have always rewarded certain kinds of behaviour and I don't really have a problem with that. Regarding marriage, there are two reasons why society sees fit to reward it :

1. Anyone making a commitment to support another "in sickness and in health etc.." provides one of the most important support systems in our society, arguably as important or more important than health care. As a society, we feel that pairwise relationships are the most stable and effective, and we reward those relationships with tax benefits and the ability to share other benefits (health care etc..).

2. Marriage was traditionally associated with child-rearing and genetic diversification, which we also support and reward as a society. Everything from wedding presents to barn-raisings has been geared around giving a new couple a solid foundation to support themselves and their future family members.

Same-sex marriage is so hotly debated up here (apart from the knee-jerk reactions) because the first part clearly applies to same sex couples every bit as much as male/female couples, but the second part (child rearing) typically does not apply.

The people in support of same-sex marriage support it because they feel it is equally valid due to the first point. The people who oppose same-sex marriage feel it is not equivalent because of the second point, and they aren't enthusiastic about same-sex couples raising children.

Needless to say, the two factions never talk to each other so this disconnect still persists.

Bridgman - I understand government licenses marriages. I just don't think they have any business doing so.

200 years ago, governments also approved the idea certain people could own other people.

That was not so good for freedom, either.

Edit - Bridgman, The citing of things like "in sickness and health" is the religious aspect of marriage, and is not relevant to the government licensing nor sanctioning.

I gather from your response you are in favor of preferential treatment for marrieds over single people ?

>>The citing of things like "in sickness and health" is the religious aspect of marriage

Interesting. I thought that applied to civil marriages as well, will check. If it doesn't my argument is weakened

>>I gather from your response you are in favor of preferential treatment for marrieds over single people ?

I am strongly in favour of anything that actually, effectively encourages the formation of strong and stable relationships. I am not completely convinced that preferential treatment of married couples actually has that effect.

So - If we had a system that did not force singles into paying higher taxes, to receive lower benefits, and no reasonable choices for handling an estate, that would weaken marriage ?

As for the state performing a marriage, All one needs to do is get a license, and have whatever ceremony, if any, one desires. In other words, you can ELECT to say in sickness and health, but there is no legal requirement.

You need a license to drive, own a bar, start an insurance company ... but you don't need a license to have children.

Why do we need a license to get married ? Because politicans passed laws saying we did, and we as lemmings said "OK".

All of the attributes you ascribed to "traditional marriage" had nothing to do with the government, either. Barn building, gift giving - that was all private.

If two people want to declare a lifetime commitment to each other, and others want to build them a barn, that is a private matter.

If Spiff and Roger want to marry, that is wonderful. I just don't think the government should have ANYTHING to say about it, and I also think that Spiff and Roger should not be punished either way. They should be able to declare a commitment to each other without some govt. saying "We approve - here is your license".

Nor should they be punished financially if they don't wish to marry.

In reply to:

---

Canada's government believes in more freedom ? Not even close. If you don't like the health care system, you are screwed. You still pay for it. Top tax rate ? over 50%.

---

Craigsub, i'm so glad you like Cdns but these kind of statements fuel the general characters traits that Cdns dislike towards the US, in case you haven't noticed.
Typical American repsonse to Canada's system of gov't.
My brother lives there now and he argues the US taxes are soooo much lower. Par for dollar my wife and I and make 'less' in American equivalent to my brother and his wife, yet we can 'afford' more for our daily living (an actual house with a yard costing less than his condo, more than one car, more audio equipment, etc.).
But you know, i don't have to pay for a $200,000 heart surgery fighting an HMO to do it and i LOVE paying higher taxes knowing that.
Quit bashing the Cdn system unless you live here.
Your perspective is brutally skewed, no matter how many 'trips' you make here or ppl you know in Canada.
I'm ecstatic to know we don't have 3 trillion dollars of debt.
Get over the financial arguments already.
Living in the US is not so much better than the rest of the world that we should all be wanting to do it. Get off the pedestal.

Geezuz, the arrogance just drips everytime i hear these nonsense statements.

BTW, Canada Day is not "independence day". That title seems more appropriate for the US values. Canada did not 'break free from tyranny' but rather formed a special designation within the British rule which started as Dominion Day and Confederation Day.
Please do not desecrate our holiday with titles that parallel US concepts of becoming indepedent from such oh so horrible outside influences.

And you've been doing so well. You had to reduce it to a personal attack, and name calling didn't you? Pity.

I had a feeling something like this was going to happen.

Chess - My words were quotes from Canadian business associates, not my own. I do a signifigant business in Canada, and my reps there are quite adept at educating me. One was be-moaning having to pay over $100K in Taxes last year.

As for housing costs, it depends on where you live. Canada, like the US, has a widely flucuating housing market.

We live in an area of 300,000 people, and our home cost us $500,000 for 7000 square feet. We live on a 3 acre lot, too. In the U.S., condos are usually located in a city, and are quite expensive. I have researched the GTA housing market, as we may need to get a 2nd residency in Canada as things expand for our companies. The GTA is roughly double in square foot dollars to what we pay here.

As for our health care system - the average American gets an MRI within 72 hours. In one of our dealerships, we had an older gent who needed quadruple by-pass, and it was done the day after the blockage was found. I am in contact with literally thousands of people weekly. Part of our services to clients is employee benefits. People here do not "pay $200,000 for surgery while arguing with an HMO".

I am curious though - since you decided to "get personal" read through EVERYTHING I wrote, and tell me how you got the idea that I was anti-Canadian ?

Perhaps it was the part where I said we have in common the loving to complain about our governments.

I do apologize for upsetting you with my congratulations on your Independence Day. That really WAS a cheap shot...

In reply to:

---

Living in the US is not so much better than the rest of the world that we should all be wanting to do it.

---

Obviously you haven't been to south Florida during the winter months.

Good levity, Brother Bob. And keeping things on a lighter note - Spiff, I am happy if this legislation and/or court ruling can help your specific situation.

In my ideal world, though, there would be a lot less government interference in people's lives.

And if anyone wants some REAL fireworks, let's open a thread on the recent Supreme Court ruling which states that local governments can force someone to sell his PRIVATE property because a corporation wants to develop that particular plot... grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

In reply to:

---

And if anyone wants some REAL fireworks, let's open a thread on the recent Supreme Court ruling which states that local governments can force someone to sell his PRIVATE property because a corporation wants to develop that particular plot... grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

---

DON'T YOU DARE! I've already lost enough tooth enamel over that little sneak attack, and I'm not even close to being a Libertarian.

And NOBODY is allowed to start a thread about the replacement of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and the probably soon to be retired Chief Justice Rehnquist. Don't do it! No! Nein! Nyet! Nada! Zippo! Zero!

Pretty

Jack ... "Zippo" ? - What do lighters have to do with this ??? heh heh.

Chess wants to use one on your pants.

Ouch !

In reply to:

---

Jack ... "Zippo" ? - What do lighters have to do with this ??? heh heh.

---

Those things are great in the wind. Would you believe whenever I was in the Army we had a guy get his Zippo (LIGHTER!) ran over by a tracked vehicle and other than a small dent the thing looked new. That's how automobiles ought to be made!

We have for a client the Ford dealership is in Bradford, Pa. ... Home of Zippo lighters. Every two years they have a "swap meet" - people literally come in from all over the world.

And yes, the real Zippo lighters are an amazing piecs of engineering - wind/rain won't phase them, and they are bulletproof.

Hmmm, well this subject certainly turned the thread around and onto a much 'lighter' note.

In reply to:

---

Ouch !

---

Just think! You could become a countertenor with The Kings Singers."

(For those who are unaware, a countertenor is one who sings in a VERY high range, sounding much like a female soprano. And The Kings Singers, are a fabulous 6 man accapella vocal group from Kings College, in England, that primarily perform madrigals and the like, with an occasional foray into the pop world, like this. It's all voices. (Be sure your speakers are on)

I think staying with my current career may be a better move ...

Well, NOT involuntarily becoming a countertenor is DEFINITELY a better move.

Agreed ... BIG time.

And to our Canadian friends - the check for an EPIC 80 system with the EP-600 upgrade went out on July 1. That seemed appropriate.

And Chess, I was aware your independence day was not an American Independence day. Yours was made official in 1982, if memory serves. One of the primary provisions was Canada no longer needed to work through England's Parliment.

I was scratching my head a bit to figure out which day mattered the most. 1867 was when Canada was granted "home rule", ie the ability to operate our own federal government. Only a few things (eg. constitutional changes) still required approval from the British parliament. We were still a monarchy in every respect, with the Queen or her representative (usually the representative, natch ) forming and dissolving each parliament.

In 1982 our constitution was modified so that we we became fully independent from the British parliament but still remained a monarchy, sharing our Queen with Britain and the other Commonwealth countries. We still require royal assent to change our constitution and each successive government serves at the pleasure of our Queen (King).

In theory, I believe we could adopt our own "uniquely Canadian" Queen/King. Jean Chretien was obviously pushing for the job, and we all live in fear of having Celine Dion rise to royalty. I'm still hoping for Shania Twain but she spends even less time in Canada these days than the Queen of England (and Canada, and...).

EDIT -- I missed one important step. Between 1867 and 1932 we had our own government but the British government could also impose laws on Canada, and our laws could be struck down if they were deemed to be inconsistent with British laws. In 1932 we were granted legislative independence, ie Britain could no longer impose laws on Canada, and our laws were no longer required to be consistent with British law.

Hold out for Shania - Just think about an American president telling her "no" during negotiations ...

OK, that sounds like a plan. We replace Stephen Harper with Shania Twain, boot the Liberals, and run a minimalist government whose leader is welcome anywhere in the world even if we are NOT providing them buckets of aid money.

Get all that done, and I will petition to get Pennsylvania to be made Canada's 14th province/territory ...

Sounds great. I have wanted to live in PA ever since I drove through there on a rally 20 years ago. After I watched Striking Distance, I was hooked for sure...

We can donate Philadelphia ro New Jersey. Striking Distance was a decent flick - and showed a lot of the real Pittsburgh.

It also has Sarah Jessica-Parker in her "pre-facial surgery" natural look.

I am putting this project into your hands - as soon as Shania is queen, let me know...

Sigh--my Zippo is not one of the usual style. I've got one of the fireplace lighter Zippos (6 inches long, skinny). I left that one on top of the car when we were getting ready to leave to go camping. It skittered off after about a quarter of a block. Now it has a number of dents in it from the road, and nothing even ran over it!

In reply to:

---

I've got one of the fireplace lighter Zippos (6 inches long, skinny).

---

must.....refrain.....from.....making.......joke!! seriously though, i've got my grandfather's Zippo from WWII and that thing is only barely weathered. i wish everything was built like those things! for starters i'd still have my '82 F-100 pickup (R.I.P.). sniff sniff

Yeah, yeah, I saw that coming when I typed it...

getting back on topic....

You're welcome Spiffy

Why does everyone blame the liberals for standing in the way of minimalist government? Seems to me that both the left and the right are guilty of spending tons of taxpayers money on pure nonsense. The rest is just Fox news channel propaganda. Now that I've said it I'm sure I'll get it from the right. Please, be gentle!

>>Why does everyone blame the liberals for standing in the way of minimalist government? Seems to me that both the left and the right are guilty of spending tons of taxpayers money on pure nonsense.

Mulroney did sort of sour things for the conservatives. He talked a good line but he spent like deficit financing was his own personal invention (although in fairness we were paying over 40B/year in interest on the national debt at the time). If you leave him out of the equation though, the Liberals have tended to be much more enthusiastic about the tax and spend model, both at a federal and provincial level.

I must admit, one could easily draw the conclusion that the Liberals shovel money we don't need to spend into government organizations, while the Conservatives shovel money we don't need to spend into private sector organizations. Canada has not been a happy place for voters for a long time.

Before Pearson, had I been of voting age I probably would have voted Liberal. At the time I think the parties were less polarized, although the curse of a three party system is that no party can afford to go more than a few tiny steps from the center or they won't get elected.

I have stopped blaming the politicians (except for the latest crop of Liberals, of course ) but blaming an ignorant and short-sighted electorate for the government we get tends to make one unpopular.

When was the last time a conservative was seen ranting about how an 8% increase in an entitlement was a "cut" because said entitlement was scheduled to increase by 10% ?

As for "Fox News" being "propaganda", there is a reason why this upstart went from a news network that CNN laughed at in 1996 to one which has a larger viewership than CNN and MSNBC combined. When they report news, they call it news. When they have opinion based shows, they call them opinion based shows.

CNN and the "Big 3" quit being objective decades ago.

wow...I agree with you on some things mr. sub, but defending Fox news as objective is laughable.

wow...I agree with you on some things mr. sub, but defending Fox news as objective is laughable.

Spiff - Fox News is objective. Period. That is the NEWS portion of the channel. Then they have the Opinion people - O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes ... etc. That is opinion. There is a difference.

Now ... let us look at CBS, and Dan Rather. He used the NEWS to foist his opinion on people.

If that's the case, then they should have to change their name to the "Fox news and OPINIONS Channel"

Peter, you guys need to lighten up. Let us look at, say, the Bill O'Reilly show. I like using him because the right says he is a lib, and the left says he is a right wing extremist....

He CALLS his show his O - PIN - YON ...

During the show, they have NEWS BREAKS.

Same thing with Hannity and Colmes. Colmes is a liberal, BTW, as a COUNTER to Hannity. And There are NEWS BREAKS on this show, too.

During the NEWS BREAKS, they tell you "Four people were killed in a tornado in Kansas". That is it. They give no opinion such as why the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto caused the tornado during the NEWS portion.

You can tell when they stop the O-PIN-YON part and go to the NEWS part - They flash "NEWS BREAK" on the screen.

If we need a flow chart, just let me know ...

In reply to:

---

They give no opinion such as why the US's refusal to ratify Kyoto caused the tornado during the NEWS portion.

---

The US's refusal to ratify Kyoto caused a tornado?

Freakin' Bush Administation and that dang Conservative Fox news!!!!

LMAO ...

OK, let's get back to the post topic. I can totally see where you're coming from craigsub, and I agree with you that the gov't has no business telling us who can be married to whom. Trying to get our gov't to bow completely out of this area of our lives would be the correct course of action. But is it the right course of action?

To me, the right way would lead to more equality sooner. There's no way for us to know whether the gov't will sooner bow out of the marriage game altogether or legally recognize same-sex marriages as equal to marriages as we know them today. Me? I think equal recognition needs to happen first, and only then will it be possible to get the gov't out -- when they have nobody left to tell "No marriage for you."

Peter, I know this will shock you - I REALLY like Bill O'Reilly. He could not care less about which party someone is in, he aggravates anyone he thinks is full of sh** ... heh heh.

And yes, while It is somewhat a positive direction to "allow" gay marriage, it was actually Spiff's reaction that got me to respond. (He and I have had a pretty good PM exchange, too) ... For Spiff to feel gratitude because the government first took away his rights, then "gave" them back is really hard to take, and not because I don't like Spiff.

They had no business taking away his rights in the first place.

Here is one Irony of this, too. It is mostly those on the "Left" side who think estate taxes are good, while those on the "Right" side who want them eliminated.

You can count on smart accountants to catch on to this: A single guy wants to leave his business to a younger partner, could now marry him legally, and avoid estate taxes. And if anyone thinks this won't happen, when millions are on the line, it will.

The Irony ? For the "Right" side, they will likely get permanent repeal of the estate tax because the "left" got gay marriage legalized. Too funny.

The US didn’t start this…….go back in history a few hundred years. The acronym for “Fornication Under Consent of the King” might be a good place to start, then keep working backward in time.

And this isn’t a “left wing thing” or a “right wing thing”. It’s just the natural progression of how things have always been done. Hell, go back a few thousand years and to wher the origin of sir names came into existence. Same thing……progression of something that was started centuries ago. Numbers were added to identify a person when sir names didn’t do the job anymore.

I can't believe I missed this fun thread! Just read the whole thing - although I almost stopped after page one, where spiff was applauding gay marriage and talking about getting his butt busted in the same paragraph! Just kidding, spiff, all in good fun.
chess, I distinctly remember arrogance from one of the Canadian members here who felt obligated to "educate" us stupid Americans about our own history/gov't. Arrogance is not the exclusive domain of ny one nationality. Regardless, who cares what the French (or anybody else) thinks about Americans anyway?
And, craigsub, ALL the NEWS outlets have inherent, obvious biases - including Fox. The stories that they choose to report on (which shapes the public agenda); the context in which they present and juxtapose facts, statements and stories; who gets the last word; etc..., all reflects human biases - intentionally or not. Most of the time it appears to be intentional.
I tuned in to the Communist News Network (CNN) the other day, just to see what drivel the enemy is foisting on the good folks of America, and was shocked to hear the news being read by a British lady! Despite myself, my IQ immediately jumped 20 points and I felt a kind of warm glow envelop me. My mind adopted the new "global perspective" and I felt superior to all you hicks between the coasts. Hilarious.
I think Fox needs to respond with a hillbilly news anchor in overalls and a bit of straw sticking out of his mouth, readin' the news and sayin', "Aw, shucks! Now that is just plain ignorant," every so often.

Bigwill - Some good points, and yes, if you are going to subscribe to the theory that all humans have biases, then all news networks will have some biases as well.

In their News Casts, Fox does have the most detached presentation of the major networks. Of course, they also have the shortest presentations, too.

As for listening to a British accent and having it increase IQ - Benny Hill killed that for me years ago ...

Hey, craigsub. How about the way Fox singlehandedly kept the Oil-for-Food scandal on the public radar? Or how CNN and other mainstream media fanned anti-war sentiment immediately before a round of polling on that issue last month? Or how the local news will grab stories from all over the country to supplement their own local story - clearly with the intent to show an epidemic or crisis of nat'l import? Oh my god, child abductions everywhere! Get the public in a tizzy and make some new laws, eh?
And when are they going to do away with some of these old laws? Or will they just keep adding them infinitum?

I think we need to get you out more ...

I was out all weekend, so I feel I've earned the right to comment here.

In reply to:

---

if you are going to subscribe to the theory that all humans have biases

---

theory? All humans have biases. That's a fact. It is how well a person is able to control their biases that is key. All cable news networks fail to control theirs in the interest of true objectivism.

And don't get me started on Bill O'Reilly. I have many opinions about that man, and none of them positive.

Peter, Your words about Bill O'Reilly are no surprise to me. He is a libertarian - And we both know how much you like libertarians ...

From Peter "Theory? All humans have biases. That's a fact"

From The American Heritage Dictionary :

Bias: "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgement" and "An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice"

Knowing the real definition of the word, I find it dismaying how this word "Biased" gets tossed around with phrases like "everyone has biases".

I've got nothing against libertarians. It's those little circles of puckered flesh usually found hovering above seat cushions that irk me. And no political categorization is devoid of them.

"little circles of puckered flesh?" ... I gather that was an attempt at wit ?

Why thank you so much for educating us on the proper definition of bias, craigsub. Because as ignorant as we all are, we had absolutely no idea.

Here are a few more definitions (from the Oxford Dictionary).
Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair
- A concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject

Given those definitions, I find the use of "everyone has biases" to be quite appropriate.

For the record - "Ignorant" was your word, not mine. And if you want to live under the terms listed in your post, go for it.

I prefer having an open mind, regardless the product, topic, or individual.

Can't we all just agree that ALL the major US TV networks have terrible news broadcasts? It's almost farcical now. Like they just read Orwell's 1984 and thought "Hey, that looks like a good idea. Let's try that."
Whatever, its TV. You shouldn't expect anything non entertaining out of it. McLuhan had it right 40 years ago.

Thank you, Adam, for providing an equally correct definition of bias. This situation, in fact, elucidates a bias craigsub's own. He, being an undoubtedly intelligent person, must be aware that there are many nuanced definitions of the word 'bias' as used in this case, yet he specifically called real only those definitions which call my grasp of the English language into question.

Dismaying, indeed.

Heck, I'll agree with that. Marshmallow news. "I know-Let's read press reports and call that news!"

hell, i'd just be happy with hearing good, upbeat, positive news, coming from an unbiased source or not!!

You are a nice man with a bright future.

in bed!

You guys arguing about the definitions of bias is dismaying, as well.
I like O'Reilly better now than before. He is at least polite until someone says something completely absurd. To his credit, I have seen him swayed by arguments from others during his show. Rather than just argue a weak point, he will concede a bit. TV egos usually don't allow that to happen!
And what's wrong with news releases from the gov't? The media dismisses them all as propaganda (well, at least the ones from our own gov't ), but there's good info to be had from primary sources.

And here's a wonderful letter penned by one of our fellow Americans that appeared in my local paper today:

"Guerrilla warfare

Listening to our president last week, I was reminded of events that unfolded 229 years ago.

An army marched into battle dressed in those famous red coats with shiny buttons and polished boots. The troops marched in formation as they advanced on their enemy.

We know what the end result was -- liberty for a ragtag army of patriots.

The reaction of those in the red coats? They protested that this army wasn't fighting according to the rules. The soldiers hid in trees and bushes, and they didn't wear uniforms.

Today, I guess they would be called illegal combatants. This band of patriots was fighting a war on its own turf against an occupying force whose commanders sought to define the terms of combat.

Are there any similarities today in these arenas of war?

JOHN MINGUS

Hemet"


Keep in mind that I live in an area where college degrees are few and far between. Regardless, it still blows my mind.

Peter, While you are lauding Adam's finding of another dictionary's definition of the word bias, keep in mind that it (The Oxford definition) included "Prejudice against or for one thing, person or group against another" ... not exactly virtuous, even if you leave the "usually unfair" portion out.

If you and Adam wish to think that everyone enters a thought process with prejudice, that is your perogative.

When it comes to the definition of the word "bias", there are not "many nuances" - the word means one is predisposed to think a certain way, USUALLY unfairly. Yes, I find SOME people to behave this way, but not EVERYBODY.

You also, in your response, said things I did not. I never "specifically" called anything a "real" definition, I merely posted what The American Heritage Dictionary has as a definition of the word "bias" when regarding a person or people. They also had wording about the bias of cloth, woodgrain, and other inanimate objects, but I was pretty sure that was not applicable to humans.

My appologies for opening this political thread. I was happy, expressed my appreciation, and opened up pandora's box again. For that I apologize.

Spiff - You know we all love you here. Excellent use of a smiley, too ...

Spiff ... When you get a minute, check your PM ...

In reply to:

---

For the record - "Ignorant" was your word, not mine. And if you want to live under the terms listed in your post, go for it.

I prefer having an open mind, regardless the product, topic, or individual.

---

If you noticed the smiley I posted at the end of that, you'd realize I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Lighten up, Craig.

Adam, I am quite cheerful, thank you. I forgot that one can say pretty much anything about another person, and as long as one adds a smiley, the words don't matter.

In reply to:

---

You are a nice man with a bright future.

---

shhhhh! don't let that kind of stuff get out, i've got a dubious reputation to uphold!

In reply to:

---

I never "specifically" called anything a "real" definition...

In reply to:

---

Knowing the real definition of the word, I find it dismaying...

---

---

Hmmmm...

I happen to use bias in a much lighter sense, as in predisposition or preference, like it is used in science. E.g., To remove the influence of brand bias from a listening test, it is a good idea to hide the equipment from the listener. While it is fun to debate semantics, it really is besides the point. Language is only as effective a communication tool as its user. Our definitions don't mesh exactly, and that's fine.

I would not spend time exchanging posts with you, craig, if it were not both educational and enjoyable.

Peter - For your lighter definition, To really eliminate bias, We need to go to the strip clubs in Niagara Falls, Canada.

Blindfolded ... (insert evil laugh smiley) ...

If a plane ticket magically appeared in my mailbox, I would be unable to refuse. All in the name of science.

Come to think of it, I think being blindfolded requires a surcharge ...

Are you a negative cutter? I used to be a projectionist at the local theatre for about 4 years, we used Cinemeccanica Vic -5's. I used to really enjoy making up film, but I hated breaking it down, that really sucked!

Nope...no negative cutting for me.