I think you hit the nail on the head as to why the left-wing bloggers, with some few but noteable exceptions (Greg at Sinister Thoughts comes to mind, but I struggle to think of another) don't have blogs worth visiting. They are the Borg - resistance is futile. Soon, all of Canada will be assimilated into their collective.

Now, if they could just avoid pesky details such as elections.

Posted by: patrick at January 29, 2006 09:18 AM

---

If you thought the Dean Democrats have been acting unhinged since the 2004 Presidential election, just watch our Canucklehead leftists after a few months of conservative reform. It's going to get ugly, Steve. Can't wait for Maude Barlow & co.'s calls for Uncle Jack to bring down the government in February...March...April...May...June...July...

Posted by: NCF TO at January 29, 2006 09:54 AM

---

Being new to my capacity as a minion of the evil overlord is there a secret handshake or anything? Do I get an automatic subscription to the Hidden Agenda Weekly? Do we have alien technology to penetrate tin foil hats and vanquish the extreme left blogosphere and the MSM? Curious.

Posted by: Clayton at January 29, 2006 10:18 AM

---

I have noticed lately how the left is behaving exactly the way they "warned" us that the "Right-Wing Radicals" would behave if given power in Ottawa.

It reminds me of an AC-DC song called Problem Child.....

"What I want I take, what I dont I break...and I dont like you"

Posted by: Boare-Axe at January 29, 2006 10:21 AM

---

I said it before: We'll always come out on top because we understand them better than they understand us.

If that ever changes (and they stop the utterly impotent "fear" argument) then we'll be in a real debate.

Unfortunately for them, most lefties do not care to think outside their respective boxes.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at January 29, 2006 10:30 AM

---

"People like Jack Layton can go on and on about how they reflect Canadian values, but when the Conservatives earn over twice the popular vote as the NDP (36.3% vs 17.5%), well, shouldn't it have been the other way around?"

Well stated, old chap!

Posted by: Anonalogue at January 29, 2006 10:48 AM

---

You must be excited!
First Canada...then the WORLD!!!
The moon-bats will never get it. We watched it in the States and I'm hoping the Left follows here in Canada. No new ideas, no legitimate arguments, just spewing rhetoric that the great unwashed must accept.
Nevermind that the Left agenda has been tried and found wanting. Those that don't drink the kool-aid are just ignoramuses unworthy of intelligent thought.
I've got news for the moon-bats. Free and clear debate offered by the blogoshere will doom their politics to the dust-bins of history where they belong.
Conservatism may not be the answer for everyone but it will now begin to consistently expose liberalism for what it is.
Thank goodness us sheep have evil over-lords to think for us. Oops! That is the liberal way.

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at January 29, 2006 10:56 AM

---

Elections do count!!! We have to remind people every day as they watch Mr. Harper strive to improve our government. Relying on voters to only pay attention during elections plays right into the hands of the Left and their media lap-dogs.

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at January 29, 2006 10:58 AM

---

Good point from Yukon Gold. We understand them better than they understand us.

I'll go further. we understand them, better than they understand themselves.

Posted by: at January 29, 2006 11:19 AM

---

I forgot to indentify myself. And apologies for the dodgy punctuation.

Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at January 29, 2006 11:21 AM

---

Guess we better crack out this book and start reading then.. eh?

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/2429/clothingandtheeviloverlordbyvi.jpg

Posted by: Nels Nielson at January 29, 2006 11:38 AM

---

"Two bloggers who need to be challenged, factually"

If anything, the box the left sits in must be expanded. Do comments such as the following (that appeared on the forum) represent the thought process of those that inhabit that corner of cyberspace?:

"You conservatives are shit stains on society"
"you cons have fucked up enough things in north america"

and "facts" such as:
“Womens rights, gay rights, civil rights, they are pro corporation, they are pro religion, they are anti democracy, they are pro deep integration, they want to smash public health care ”

"know what the conservative party stands for, if you think they arent about destroying womens rights, gay rights etc. then you havent been paying attention, which is totally possible, seeing as so many good Canadians voted for such a disgusting vial group of people.”

Nope. No need for facts as the left spews hatred (where is the tolerance and acceptance they speak of) at every turn. Conservatives, we all simply dismiss such asinine comments and laugh at the suggestion that "Babble" can "deal" with the right. Without the government hand holding the left at every turn...there is not much they can deal with.

Posted by: Ownshook at January 29, 2006 12:27 PM

---

The problem with the Left is they think if they just have the right emotional state about an issue that's all that's required.

Some meanie like Angry comes along and demonstrates that feeling good about the hay does not fill the silo. This makes them cranky.

Congrats on making them this cranky, Angry. It means you and Kate are right on the ball.

Posted by: The Phantom at January 29, 2006 12:38 PM

---

This highlights an odd feature of political discourse in this country (and perhaps in most countries.) The Right generally regards the Left as simply misguided. The Left, however, assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil. I haven't yet encountered a theory which attempts to explain this bizarre attitude.

Posted by: Jim at January 29, 2006 01:00 PM

---

I followed your first link and scrolled down, this is what I found:

Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
posted 29 January 2006 08:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google gave me the links to these two blogs:
Angry in the Great White North

small dead animals

At a first, superficial, glance, both of these appear to be the work of conservative kooks. There's a lot of conservative kooks on the web. Probably some out there regard babble as the work of socialist or liberal kooks.

Hint, how much influence, if any, do these two blogs actually have? Conservative propagandists ranting and raving on these two sites - how are these two any different from the other nutcases out there, like, for example, FD?

What an eye opener. Now I know why the crowd was booing Harper during Layton's speech. Why is it the real fanatical ranters and ravers never seem to recognize themselves? The same ones who profess to be progressive and champions of rights?
I wonder if they would have had the balls to boo Stephen Fletcher the way the booed Harper? I hope Fletcher is named Health Minister. Actually that idea was touted by Jane Taber on this a.m.'s CTV - QP.

Posted by: Cheri at January 29, 2006 01:11 PM

---

I should have added to the above it was a partial quote and should have had a quote " starting at
Boom and ending at FD"

Posted by: Cheri at January 29, 2006 01:16 PM

---

I took the liberty of crosslinking to Kate at SDA here: Comments (54)It's Been Nearly A Week Since I've offended someone...hattip: Evil Overlords of the GWN

Posted by: backhoe at January 29, 2006 01:18 PM

---

Jim,

Wow, you nailed that one. Great post...

The Greek

Posted by: The Greek at January 29, 2006 01:18 PM

---

Credo of the Left:
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for my rights, for that is your way.”
”When I am stronger than you, I take away your rights, for that is my way.”

Posted by: Monty at January 29, 2006 02:07 PM

---

I believe this is the third time I've visited your little echo chamber. Look at the comments to this point. Not one unique thought among them, all simply reinforcements of your own inanity.

The 'babble' that you mock is a place where those with less ego and more intelligence gather to debate. It does not exist as a soapbox altar to one conceited commentator.

To wrap up, as you note, no one over there was much interested in a call to arms against you. The few of us who've been here know there's not a whole lot of substance to be found - and that a pissing contest is just what you'd love. I dropped back to see just what set Hinterland off, and I see you're claiming to be battling the lefty hordes.

Get a life.

Posted by: LTJ at January 29, 2006 02:54 PM

---

We have a life...its called democracy komrade!

Posted by: Monty at January 29, 2006 02:59 PM

---

Interesting how the left always attempts to quash debate. What a wonderful example of socialist "democracy".

Posted by: Dianne at January 29, 2006 03:31 PM

---

...yeah, when they want our opinion, they'll give it to us.

:D

Posted by: David Lockwood at January 29, 2006 03:53 PM

---

'Babble' is a cheap attempt to ride on the coat-tails of 'Google' by having a similar name...and they talk about 'imagination' :)

:D

Posted by: David Lockwood at January 29, 2006 03:57 PM

---

You're spending your Sunday afternoon trolling blogs, LTJ - if we need to get a life, certainly you do too!

Posted by: NCF TO at January 29, 2006 03:57 PM

---

The NDP is stuck at 20% or less of the national vote because the majority of Canadians have enough personal responsibility and initiative to provide for themselves and their families. We have no wish to force hard-working taxpayers to subsidize the sloth and ignorance of the NDPers.

Posted by: Capitalist Tool at January 29, 2006 04:21 PM

---

One thing we could keep in mind is the fact that while our conservative views are seen and recognized here and there in the MSM, we are a very small group in the overall scheme of things.

We enjoy recognition because of our newness and our instant freedom of expression.

All that is wonderful, but our small size makes those who make threats of blood letting look foolish. We are important but we are not that big yet.

Right of center blog opinion is growing and that is a good thing.

Liberals garnered a miraculous 103 seats in the election. If we had the power and influence some of you imagine, the Liberal party vote count would have been more like 29 or 19.
BTW, check BendGovernment.blogspot for Charges for 10 $Billion theft of our money? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 29, 2006 04:26 PM

---

I think the line that struck me the most was "need to be challenged, factually".

This seems to me to mean that the original complainant over on Hinterland is convinced that you, Steve (and Kate at SDA) are *lying* -- that whatever facts or information (as opposed to analyses and opinions) you present here are tailored, spun, or outright made up in order to advance the conservative political viewpoint.

Being lazy, I have to admit I don't generally bother to follow every link-chain of evidence most blogs/sites provide to support their arguments. But in my own experience, on the rare occasions I have done, right-wing/conservative blogs and websites have *always* provided better documentation, more comprehensive data and more objective analyses than their counterparts.

I would like to challenge LTJ, or anyone else from Hinterland, to provide a single clear and easily-documented example of any instance where either Steve Janke or Kate MacMillan (AngryGWN and SDA, respectively) have knowingly presented an objective falsehood on their blogs and called it fact.

When you call someone a liar, you'd better be able to prove it. Bearing false witness tends to backlash badly on you if you can't.

Posted by: Stephen J. at January 29, 2006 04:33 PM

---

No THAT is just Hilarious!!!!!

I read you every day, Angry, but... Feeeeck.

Excuse me, I must Blog now ;-)

Posted by: StalkingCat at January 29, 2006 04:35 PM

---

Less ego and more intelligence, LTJ? How ironic.

I expect you were hoping to provoke a firestorm of angry replies (there's a pun on a name in there someplace) which you can hold up to your rabble as evidence of conservative fanaticism. Sorry to disappoint you.

If you'd like to engage in intelligent debate, keep posting here. Maybe you'll learn something. If not, keep spewing bile on your own blog.

Posted by: Mac at January 29, 2006 04:37 PM

---

Geesh - I just went over there and read some of the bile spewing forth from their posts - Wow - they are angrier than I thought over their loss. I find it really, really interesting as to how they describe us - as non- progressive "turds" I think was one of their words.

Funny though - as was noted above, we always hear about how the left is the "tolerant" and "progressive" party but you would never know it from these people's posts.

I came to a conclusion during the election that the left's way to convince someone of something - even if it is a lie - is to denounce and/or smear over and over and over and over. Strange thing though is not only did they convince voters of this but they have actually convinced themselves of their self-importance!

So congrats to Angry and Kate for bringing these "issues" forward! Keep up the good work - someone has to bring the "truth" out and no matter how much the left wants to keep thing hidden, they just can't stand that they have no control over it!!

Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 29, 2006 04:43 PM

---

I also wanted to add a question - how come any of the "lefty" blogs make it so difficult to post a reply - they ask for sign in's and passwords and user names - it is a real chore - is this so they can make sure that only their views are presented.

I ask them to take note that Conservative sites welcome all bloggers with a minimum of work to present their views.

Interesting???

Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 29, 2006 04:45 PM

---

Anyone else find it amusing that LTJ blows in here, moans that no one has posted an opposing opinion in this echo chamber and then leaves without posting an opposing opinion?

Come on, LTJ. You want opposing opinion, why not give us one?

Posted by: Robin Banks at January 29, 2006 04:53 PM

---

I also wanted to add a question - how come any of the "lefty" blogs make it so difficult to post a reply - they ask for sign in's and passwords and user names - it is a real chore - is this so they can make sure that only their views are presented.

I ask them to take note that Conservative sites welcome all bloggers with a minimum of work to present their views.

I've purposely rejected login schemes, and I even allow anonymous comments. Why? Because I don't want anyone to feel intimidated in the least to leave a comment. Have something controversial to say? Worried about hate emails? Say what you have to say -- if there is a serious problem, you and I will work it out. Otherwise, everyone's voice is welcome.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 29, 2006 05:34 PM

---

Jim, allow me to give you a theory that explains the left/right evil/misguided position. And as an added bonus, it will also address LTJ's 'less ego and more intelligence' snipe.

I'm a pretty smart guy, if testing is to be believed, but I've been fortunate enough to meet a great many people far smarter than I am. When I look at them through a political lens, I can assure you of one thing without hesitation: their political tendencies are all over the board. CPC, NDP, Green, even Liberal. So no side can claim that they are 'smarter' than the other.

However... if you dig a little closer into HOW they think, there's a different story. Those people who tend to make their decisions based on imperical data and thorough reasoning tend to be on the right side of the spectrum. Those whose decision-making is emotionally based tend to be left-leaning. (For those of you familiar with Myers-Briggs, think T-F.)

Everyone likes to think of themselves as being on the side of what is right.

Since leftists 'feel' they are 'good', then right-wingers are 'bad' or 'evil.' And the rhetoric follows in the hopes the bad people will cower, which brings demands for reason from the right.

Since right-wingers 'think' they are 'correct', then leftists are 'wrong' or 'misguided.' And then we try to explain, hoping to persuade, which brings distain from the left.

(This is also the reason LTJ didn't actually present and argument - he didn't 'feel' he needed to. His argument is 'self-evident.'

It also explains why the commentators here didn't rise to the bait, but wanted him to present an argument. They 'think' LTJ should debate, not rant.)

It's really pretty simple.

Posted by: whiteotter at January 29, 2006 05:42 PM

---

Well given that John Crosbie referred scatologically to a certain someone in the PMO who would "make an addition to the sewer"; if anyone is to be given a scatological appellation perhaps they should direct it at themselves.

A democracy is one in which a range of opinions are tolerated; not squelched. If the lefty bloggers are not up to that; then it is simply because they don't have an earnest and true belief in democracy.

If they want to go flog the proposition that only their view is the correct one; then they belong to the camp of ideologues and dictators. Perhaps they are taking to many lessons from terror organizations.

Now hear this, to quote Mike Duffy of CTV: "We will not be intimidated."

Sharpen your pencils and write it out three times and then commit to memory.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at January 29, 2006 05:48 PM

---

"leftists 'feel' they are 'good', right-wingers 'think' they are 'correct'"

So in Star Trek terms, leftists are from Tellar Prime, right-wingers are from Vulcan.

Haven't done a good Star Trek metaphor in ages. Ah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 29, 2006 05:50 PM

---

Rabble Babble is aptly named.

Too funny.

It is like I am finding on my site, with the Andrew Krystal saga. I have had countless e-mails thanking me for making the discussion and the soundtrack available.

http://www.theinfozone.net/#krystal if you have not followed the story yet.

One person was angry and sent me an e-mail hate gram saying I was a dreadful person.

Heck I am not the one who attacked Charles Adler.

Angry, that you have wound up a wackaloon speaks well for AGWN. Kate's SDA is another daily stop in the cyber highway.

Keep it up. The facts and truth being in the wider audience anger the heck out of tyrants and bullies.

TIZ

Posted by: TIZReporter at January 29, 2006 06:03 PM

---

Whiteotter: I think you've hit the nail on the head. My experience with leftists is very similar. Presented with a issue, their immediate reaction is emotional. Their reason is then recruited (hijacked?) to rationalize the emotional response by cherry-picking the facts, (at best), or simply labelling the source of any counterargument as "bad", "evil", "scary" or whatever, thereby providing an excuse for ignoring or discounting it. It's a defence mechanism. One doesn't have to deal with uncomfortable concepts such as real external threats or criminality on the part of others if your worldview allows you to "control" these external threats with platitudinous nonsense like "we just have to understand them", or "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" or "The government (nebulous external force) can fix the problem".
Leftists' anger is therefore understandable if one considers that any counterfact to one of their articles of faith constitutes a threat to their entire comfortable, herdlike worldview. Since their original position on an issue was not arrived at rationally, but rather emotionally, the only appropriate counterattack to a challenge is an emotional one.

Posted by: DrD at January 29, 2006 06:17 PM

---

The concept of the "tolerant, progressive and open-minded left" ranks up there with the "paperless office".

One of the more interesting aspects of the election was how anti-democratic many on the left are. The possibility that another viewpoint might win a democratic election had them wild-eyed and hysterical.

I hope Prime Minister Harper follows through on fixed election dates and goes back to enumeration. The current system seems to be full of fraud and opportunities for fraud.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at January 29, 2006 06:30 PM

---

...look at the bright side, without these moonbats we wouldn't know how good we have it.

If it wasn't so prevalent with the airhead liberals it would be comical.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 06:31 PM

---

tomax: offering LTJ and other neodolts some belly button lint as a peace offering...

Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 06:41 PM

---

I have just the thing. Phantom example Numero Uno, Cathie From Canada! If you even discuss gay marriage yer a BIGOT!!!

http://cathiefromcanada.blogspot.com/2006/01/we-can-only-choose-our-side.html

No really, that's her thesis. Love it!

Posted by: at January 29, 2006 06:42 PM

---

previous posted by moi. Blasted computer! Does what I tell it, not what I want.

Posted by: The Phantom at January 29, 2006 06:49 PM

---

Refreshing debate. Very enjoyable. Keeping the lashing out to a minimum and few suggestions of where to stick one*s head is a quality of this leading blogsite.

Lashing out is a habit in the Lebanon / Israel zone. Not a profitable custom. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 29, 2006 07:01 PM

---

tomax: offers TG some belly button lint...

Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 07:08 PM

---

Babble is an online mental hospice for mentally ill utopians who have been tramatized by frequent exposures to realitiy.

Truely sad to see...why go there? You get some sick pleasure from watching the mentally ill verbally mastrubate on each other to keep warm in a world of cold reality?

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at January 29, 2006 07:19 PM

---

I feel like Evil Homer.

Posted by: at January 29, 2006 07:30 PM

---

Wow, some very good comments and feedback here. I used to read Babble ocassionally and even post from time to time. I don't bother anymore because of the tendancy of the regulars to swarm and ban any dissenting voice, even one of "their own" if it does not "support the mandate of Babble". The mandate, in effect, is simply unconditional agreement.

At any rate, the problem with the left that I have in general is that I find them to be very dishonest, both with themselves and with the world at large. Their lack of propensity to debate factually is certainly a factor, but I see it too in more general terms, such as in the recent election.

Jack Layton continusouly, daily, referred to his party as representing "ordinary Canadians" and "working families". Yet 83% of voters seemingly did not agree. I consider myself very "ordinary" and we are indeed a "working family" but I find virtually nothing of substance in the NDP platform which resonates with me.

In general terms, there's little there to disagree with -- who doesn't want good health care, education opportunities, a strong democracy, our elders cared for and clean air to breathe? We all want sunshine and lollipops, but we differ sharply on the means to achieve those things. In calling us "bad" and "evil" their shortchanging themselves by failing to recognize the commonality in many of our broader goals with their own.

It is only in the nuts and bolts of the NDP platform where we find the realization that they do not speak for ordinary, hard working Canadian families. They speak for the poor, the feminists, the addicted, the unions, gays, environmentalists and assorted other socialist activists.

I find it insulting that a group with such narrow focus puports to speak for me and my family, and I find it rather dishonest. Financial blackmail in the House for special interest groups does not equate "getting results" for me or my family.

In that sense, this election was very much about values. Until the Laytons of the left recongnize their own dishonesty, they will forever hover under 20% in the polls, all the while wondering how to "reach out" to the ordinary, hardworking families that, if they stopped to think about it, are the very people they classify as evil.

Posted by: RippleRock at January 29, 2006 08:37 PM

---

When you and your acoloytes are finished with your latest frenzy of self-righteousness, Steve, perhaps you (not some of your supporters here, who are capable only of namecalling) might be willing to engage in some factual exchanges. Like you getting that CBC associate producer fired with a completely wrong-headed take on one story she was doing in a series.

That was bad. Why do conservatives always try to s*ut opposition down? (I'm using an asterisk because your censor-bot doesn't like the word that I intended).

Kate's exactly the same way. She got the CBC Roundtable crowd to censor a blogpost by one of her colleagues, and somehow managed to make the latter grovel in classic USSR confessional style.

Now, granted, you guys aren't alone. Warren Kinsella has been acting out recently, as you must be aware--yet another bogus "libel" action or two. Neither you nor Kate have taken up the gauntlet--but, then again, it would put you both in a tight spot if you were to do so, wouldn't it?

I do tend to engage factually with you people, as do many of my co-bloggers on the left, but it's easier for your crowd to engage in trolling stereotypes, isn't it? This thread being a glaring case in point.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 29, 2006 08:48 PM

---

I found the real evil overlord - check my site link on my name below

Seems the went off the road - but lucky the temperature has stayed low so we caught up with them after we sobered up from the incoming party`s party :)

Look here for our on the spot report www.donlowconcrete.com

Posted by: Floyd Low at January 29, 2006 09:42 PM

---

dawg your fangs are showing, we try to engage with "you people" too, IMHO the only thing glaring in this thread is you and your people.

Posted by: kelly at January 29, 2006 10:00 PM

---

I'm sure Kate can defend herself Dr. Dawg, but just a word - look at the results of these blogs.

Some of the top blogs are conservative and allow both sides (to a limit) speak. Mostly conservative, but is this wrong? Also, seeing this is her blog, she can set the tone and if you don't like it well, whatever.

Speaking of closing things down, I think the Liberals have done a big job of that over the years n'est pas?

You are going to get extremists on both sides. The difference being what are you extreme about.

Lies, deception, and slander? Or frustration, head banging on walls, or yells of "what the hey?"

Me, I see a lot of "ordinary Canadians" in the second group, whereas the left leaning Liberal types are the first.

I have a list of 199 things the Liberals have screwed Canadians over. I have maybe 10 with Mulroney.

Seeing both are gone, I do hope this is a new day in Canada.

Cheers
Tom

Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 10:19 PM

---

Whoops, wrong blogger, I mean Steve can defend her, um, himself...

...irk..

Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 10:20 PM

---

"Blasted computer! Does what I tell it, not what I want."

I hate it when they do that!

(That's why I got a Mac! ;^) )

My question is, when do(es) the Evil Overlord(s) start sending out the sycophant paychecks? And how much is my "American subversion" bonus going to be? Please LMK ASAP.

Posted by: Meg Q at January 29, 2006 10:22 PM

---

Oh, meant to add . . .

"Heck, I've never even taken a journalism course."

Well, as someone who's taken several, let me just say that right there that puts you ahead of about 95% of the "journalism profession".

Posted by: Meg Q at January 29, 2006 10:30 PM

---

Sorry dawg I've debated with you before and as soon as you were presented with facts you freaked out like the rest of the lib-left... Shall I try to find the threads and post them for the others?

Posted by: at January 29, 2006 10:30 PM

---

I just took a look over the Rabble page in question (and eaten an imaginary cracker to clear my mental palate), and the substance (if one may call it such) seems to be, "Angry and Kate are complete fascist-party-line-touting knuckle-dragging idiots... and they're kicking our argumentative asses and we gotta do something!". Now *those* kids must have some self-esteem problems...

Posted by: kj at January 29, 2006 10:36 PM

---

Hey, Tom, I didn't exactly weep a lot of tears to see the Libs go down.

My point was only that pretending that "it's just blogging" is a bit disingenuous on Steve's part. He's caused real harm to at least one person, and he's not the only one. "Real, material damage," to use his words.

And I remain bemused by the bitterness so many conservatives continue to emit, even in victory. What rich inner lives y'all must have.

Me, I'll just stick to the facts and have the occasional battle. I'll leave stuff like this to, well, some of you guys:

Canucklehead leftists...The moon-bats will never get it...the Left and their media lap-dogs...No need for facts as the left spews hatred...The Left...assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...Interesting how the left always attempts to quash debate...[Now, that's rich--DD]...the sloth and ignorance of the NDPers...Presented with a issue, their immediate reaction is emotional...wild-eyed and hysterical...moonbats...airhead liberals...Babble is an online mental hospice for mentally ill utopians...

And then this gem:

"At any rate, the problem with the left that I have in general is that I find them to be very dishonest, both with themselves and with the world at large. Their lack of propensity to debate factually is certainly a factor..."

Yup. Plenty of facts in the above. Presented without emotion, too. I'm impressed.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 29, 2006 10:41 PM

---

"Credo of the Left:
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for my rights, for that is your way.”
”When I am stronger than you, I take away your rights, for that is my way.”

Posted by: Monty at January 29, 2006 02:07 PM "

Sounds an awful lot like the Islamists!

Posted by: felix at January 29, 2006 10:59 PM

---

Apologies: "Real, material damage" was Steve's quote from Hinterland, not his own words.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 29, 2006 11:00 PM

---

Prefacing this with the idea that I agree with most of the issues-based posting, both by Steve and by many comment-leavers...

There is an inherent contradiction between our policy leanings (which, for most of us leans toward the individualist) and the way in which I often see "us" conducting ourselves toward "the left".

In this thread alone, there are countless references that lump all on the left or all who post at Babble or all feminists, or... (you get the idea) together as if they all think and act the same way.

It's exactly what many of us are so angry with people doing to "us" - Do we *all* oppose abortion? Of course not. Do we *all* even support Stephen Harper? No. We are individuals who have arrived at our beliefs or belief systems independently. We do, frequently, organize ourselves into teams called parties (and if you want to question me on something like "How can you be a member of a party that supports X?" then that is a legitimate grouping), but acknowledge my individuality. ...And we must do it, too. The difference between "So many on the left say..." and "All lefties say..." is minor, but fundamental. If we are the open, tolerant, debate-welcoming types we claim to be, then we cannot in good faith lump every lefty together, either.

Thus, "Babble is an online mental hospice for mentally ill utopians who have been tramatized by frequent exposures to realitiy. Truely sad to see...why go there? You get some sick pleasure from watching the mentally ill verbally mastrubate on each other to keep warm in a world of cold reality?" (from above) doesn't get us anywhere.

Ashley

Posted by: Ashley at January 29, 2006 11:04 PM

---

Ashley, you may well be correct ........... but they're still all assholes

Posted by: jlchydro at January 29, 2006 11:15 PM

---

Because of this blog, Kate's and several other not-to-be-missed blogs people are actually able to find real information and express their opinion, AMAZING!

What I enjoy about coming here is that if you are offering an opinion you will say so but when you say something is a fact you will actually have something to back it up and where to find it. Many of the leftist blogs don't bother, just ask you to take their word for it, that you MUST believe them and never challenge the herd thought.

I have always enjoyed politics, tried to stay informed and have swung between liberal and CPC over the years, depending on situations at hand. Not once did I ever put a lib sign in my yard, take out a membership, donate even a penny or work on a campaign, I just voted. Not so this election, I did all of the above and plenty more. The liberal party has become thoroughly corrupt and out of touch, the last two years have likely driven me from them forever. Heck, we're already meeting and talking about the next election, do even better!

Having factual information provided by hard working bloggers has made it easier and more fun. I have witnessed a few liberal melt downs this week of clenched teeth and hair pulling, they just cannot believe that a democratic election would even DARE to take their power away. Discussing policy and issues is even more fun, they are the most absolutely uninformed bunch, they are always good for a laugh in a group.

Since the CPC has indeed won this election do we now get to hold the title of Canadian Values? The only ones that I can seem to identify with the liberal party is theft, lies, cronism and criminal activity, those are liberal values to a tee. I will now sleep better knowing that Canada is on a better track to cleaner government, accountability and more freedom from government interference in our daily lives.

Thanks for your hard work, keep it up. Knowing the shrieks of anguish will continue over at babble just makes it sweeter!

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at January 29, 2006 11:15 PM

---

Dr. D, what would you like to see? Should we rush over and search up the thousands of derogatory comments made by leftie-bloggers and bring them here for your approval?

Posted by: Mac at January 29, 2006 11:17 PM

---

Tomax, I was in a hurry. My 7:01 comment was convolouted. What I tried to say was, I do like Janke*s blogsite here very much.

Even with this mud chucking, there are a few ideas showing up and and the tone is more cheerful than some. That*s a credit to Angry, who happens to be more ligical than angry.

Gotta slpit to see who Kinsella is slapping with a lawsuit. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 29, 2006 11:28 PM

---

I was just over at AGWN in the post linking here. How completely friggin disgusting! They claim they're winning because they have "facts" on their side. That they're willing to "debate". Well frig 'em I say. We don't need their bloody facts and we don't need their bloody debate. We have strength of numbers and we'll take our beloved Canada back through force if need be. We need to get louder and we need to get prouder and we need to show these "people" for the neo-con bushymcchimphitler lovv'in thugs that they are!

I'm sorry. I usually just lurk but recent events have me completely enraged and the responses I saw in AGWN's comment threads pushed me over the edge. Please forgive.

Et tu, Dr. D?

Posted by: Mac at January 29, 2006 11:33 PM

---

I should have explained.. the last post, with the exception of my pithy last remark, was from rabble babble...

Posted by: Mac at January 29, 2006 11:34 PM

---

Very clever, Dawg. Out of my 7 paragraphs above, you quoted only one; the one which summarized my preceeding thoughts on Babble in particular and introduced my subsequent thoughts on the NDP in general.

And yet, based upon that one paragraph alone, you fault me for having emotion yet no facts, conveniently ignoring everything else I have said.

It reminds me of Babble's general response to anything that comes out of Harper's mouth. The tendancy is to ignore the substance and instead focus on the "God Bless Canada" or the use of the word "heartland" in his victory speech as some sort of "proof" that he is an evil cyborg in Bush's back pocket.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=002107

The Shiny Object Syndrome has gotten old.

Posted by: RippleRock at January 29, 2006 11:34 PM

---

"I was just over at AGWN in the post linking here. How completely friggin disgusting! They claim they're winning because they have "facts" on their side. That they're willing to "debate". Well frig 'em I say. We don't need their bloody facts and we don't need their bloody debate. We have strength of numbers and we'll take our beloved Canada back through force if need be. We need to get louder and we need to get prouder and we need to show these "people" for the neo-con bushymcchimphitler lovv'in thugs that they are!"

A sample of why our ridicule is warranted. Here we have a guy who is willing to take the country by force. Facts, debating be damned, just get my my molotov and Che Beret.

Posted by: noblerogue at January 29, 2006 11:37 PM

---

I will concede a point to the Dr.Dawg, and that would be this.
A true arguement does not require slander to tear down one's opponent's character, but rather a true arguement countains substance that trumps one's opponent's expressed offering.

That said, in Dawg's cut and paste illustration of words used of expressed emotion from this thread, 2 points.

1. "The Left"... you actually used this as filler, or do are you really offended by these two words? Should "The Left" be replaced by "The Centrist View of Normal People"?

2.I believe you were dishonest with yourself and us, as two entries in this post presented substantial arguements, without using labels.

Posted by: RippleRock at January 29, 2006 08:37
PM
Posted by: whiteotter at January 29, 2006 05:42 PM

And this post has an arguement with the word "leftist", but it is surrounded by a well reasoned context.

Posted by: DrD at January 29, 2006 06:17 PM

DR.Dawg, I invite you to comment on these posts.

Posted by: Pete at January 29, 2006 11:41 PM

---

1) Use of ellipsis was confusing. I was referring to "The Left...assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil," a dumb remark if ever I've seen one. I do fault the Right for lack of empathy, a fact that quickly became apparent during Hurricane Katrina, but evil is a rather strong word. I've met one or two genuinely evil people in my lifetime. Kate and Angry are wrong, sometimes egregiously so, but not evil. Indeed, the category "evil" isn't used on the Left very much at all. It's a religious concept, isn't it?

2) I wasn't dishonest in the least. Obviously you can find the occasional lucid argument from the Right. But the orgy of self-righteousness in this thread, the blanket statements, the hatred, derision, namecalling--it's PKB time, Pete. Isn't it? Put this stuff in a bottle with some of the babbler excesses and you'll get a warm blast of gamma radiation.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 29, 2006 11:49 PM

---

Wow, now they are threatening violence because they don't agree with democracy? Another Canadian Value of theirs?

Since they are so hyped up that the CPC is American (hahahahaha!!) then by threatening us shouldn't they be worried that America will then step in and rectify their little revolution if they are planning civil war? Shouldn't they be worried? I think they should be since in their fantasy we are disguised Americans and everyone knows going to war with them is a baaaaad idea!

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at January 29, 2006 11:56 PM

---

Allow me to extend my congratulations to Angry! A greater honor could not be bestowed on anyone, than to have the Cave Dwellers acknowledge (indirectly), that they've been clobbered. Carry on Evil Overlord, I hope you had a smile on your face all day long. It is well deserved.

Posted by: debris trail at January 29, 2006 11:59 PM

---

Dr.Dawg

2) I wasn't dishonest in the least. Obviously you can find the occasional lucid argument from the Right

Thanks for the case and point.

You past off the "occasional lucid argument from the Right", a.k.a substance, and go for the PKB card.
Go anywhere in North America, and you will get the "...the orgy of self-righteousness..., the blanket statements, the hatred, derision..." in any university cafe or donutshop discussions.

The popularity of this blog is the substance that your eyes see, but pass over.

I already conceded the slander point, I now point you back to the substance.

Posted by: Pete at January 30, 2006 12:27 AM

---

"I now point you back to the substance."

Which, in all fairness, I have acknowledged over at my place.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 12:30 AM

---

Congrats for you and Kate, Angry! Getting noticed by the MSM, and enraging the "lefties" has produced traffic, LOTS of traffic. People are curious by nature and will want to see wot the fuss is about. Hopefully, they will become interested enough in one camp or the other, perhaps both, sparking an interest in dialogue and debate. Which is a good thing as they will hopefully become more aware and involved in running the country. Which as we know, is a hell-uva-lot better than the situation now!

Posted by: Snookie at January 30, 2006 12:43 AM

---

I've given some thought to Dr. Dawg's concerns and assertions as well as those of LTJ from Rabble Babble. While it might be difficult, I shall attempt to restrain from mocking liberals henceforth. I shall not, however, cease to point out the errors and lack of logic in their arguments. For instance...

Dr. Dawg, I would like to hear how you figure conservatives demonstrated a lack of empathy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is one thing to make such a claim; it is something else altogether to back it up with facts.

While you're preparing your response, don't forget to include what you personally did to demonstrate your empathy in the aftermath. After all, actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Mac at January 30, 2006 01:08 AM

---

OK, Mac, here's a little anthology for you, your colleagues speaking for themselves:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2005/09/katrina-and-right-this-will-probably.html

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2005/09/katrina-memes-right-half-of.html

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2005/09/fear-and-loathing-in-new-orleans-every.html

If you cruise around my site during this period, I think you will find that I had a different take on things. I didn't gloat, for example, or make thinly-disguised racist remarks. I believe that I expressed empathy in my writings, but how the hell do I explain either the concept or the feeling to people who don't have either?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 01:21 AM

---

This so-called "DR.DAWG" only posts here in a vain attempt to sucker people into going to HIS blogg. He seldom reads posts or comments; he drives by and drops references to HIS blogg. He must not get much traffic. It looks like he is just begging for visits and hits.

Posted by: terrence at January 30, 2006 02:08 AM

---

Ideas are worthy of discussion, and if more folks from the left have useful ideas to discuss, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Ideology, on the other hand, tends to require individual people to say when you're on the right track and when you've gone astray.

As an example, we can discuss various methods of providing healthcare, and examine them on their merits. Jack! Layton is stuck saying that Private Medicine is bad when Paul Martin goes to a private clinic, but isn't so bad when he himself goes to a private facility.

Posted by: Paul O at January 30, 2006 02:10 AM

---

Come on, Paul. We both know that Layton's "private" clinic was the Shouldice, grandfathered in with the introduction of medicare, and strictly not-for profit. That's a pretty thin case to justify a claim of hypocrisy.

As for this "terrance" entity, I was asked for examples of lack of empathy on the Right, and I provided them. And, by the way, it's "blog." Another failure, obviously, of our socialist/cultural Marxist educational system [tm].

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 02:18 AM

---

This so-called "DR.DAWG" only posts here in a vain attempt to sucker people into going to HIS blogg. He seldom reads posts or comments; he drives by and drops references to HIS blogg. He must not get much traffic. It looks like he is just begging for visits and hits.

And I didn't do that in the early days? Bloggers play two games simultaneously. First, there is the theme of their blog; in my case, conservative politics and media analysis. But there is a metagame of being a successful blogger with lots of links and traffic. We all play both games simultaneously.

Don't fault Dr Dawg for trying to get readers. Give him credit -- he's putting himself out there, among this generally conservative crowd, with links to his liberal postings, asking you to read and consider.

That takes some guts.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 30, 2006 02:31 AM

---

Socialist, Steve, socialist. :)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 02:36 AM

---

All the Katrina links, pics, and quotes you'll ever need:
--HURRICANE KATRINA- archive of links-

Posted by: backhoe at January 30, 2006 03:28 AM

---

Socialist, Steve, socialist. :)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Never mind what I said. He's a socialist. Don't bother reading his stuff. Nonsense. Every last word.

Just kidding.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 30, 2006 06:49 AM

---

All I can recall from Babble is that there are two or three posters that make a habit of attacking not with reason or facts, but ad hom and slander.

What I find ironic is that someone can be called a bigot because they vote conservative.

On a blog.

In Canada.

I didn't make this up.

Posted by: gimbol at January 30, 2006 07:00 AM

---

Being dissed by Rubble would be a feather if there any intellect there. Mostly, it appears to be largely potty minded kids. The average age appears to be 14. It seems that the deepest socialistic thought for most would be the consequences of negotiating a share of their allowance with a sibling... or is rubble a prototype for the NDP concept of daycare?

Posted by: Skip at January 30, 2006 07:50 AM

---

As a retired USAF Colonel who has lived in Canada for the past 25 years - You've got it right. Keep up the good work and great writing!

Posted by: Howdy at January 30, 2006 08:25 AM

---

Angry in the Great White North and small dead animals are not left, we're right!

I think the poster was confused, because Hinterland called the thread "God I hate the left," and apparently thought that H was referring to the two blogs as leftist.

Posted by: RP. at January 30, 2006 08:58 AM

---

Rabble and Babble don't encourage debate. Skip had it right in describing rabble/babble posters as a bunch of potty mouthed kids.

Over on Free Dominion, they have several threads (under the topic "The Ridicule Room") relating to rabble re the Conservatives win, support for Hamas, etc, etc, etc. If you disagree, you get banned. Many FD members have been banned, they re register and get banned again. It almost seems to be a badge of honor to see how many times you can get banned.

Although I lurk and read some of their forums, I would never want to join. I enjoy debate but over there, you don't get that chance. If you don't agree with what they say, you're trashed.

Someone at FD, after reading a babble thread as it related to the election, noticed the babblers not even trashing the Conservatives - it was between Liberal & NDP supporters. They were throwing nasty personal comments at each other because they actually dared to express an opinion. A FD member commented after reading this particular thread it was like "They were devouring their young.'
It seems to me that Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore & Rosie O'Donnell would be right at home here. They do get mentioned there a lot, especially after Moore made his pronouncement about electing a Conservative government.
There are so many examples of babble it's hard to cite just one or two things that pop out so -
do a Google search (through FD) and click on some of the links.

Posted by: On-Tory-O at January 30, 2006 09:05 AM

---

My access to smalldeadanimals was blocked today because it was categorized as a "sex" site. Is this vandalism by the moonbat left or a coincidental technical glitch?

Posted by: Murray at January 30, 2006 09:33 AM

---

Hinterland is one of those left-wing nutbars that couldn't make a coherent argument if its life depended on it. If you're against homosexual marriage then ye old line comes out, "bigotty bigot bigot". This person is from the same site that produced a hate-filled cartoon of the Pope.

Like I said, left-wing nutbars.

Posted by: None at January 30, 2006 09:42 AM

---

Dr. Dawg said:

"Come on, Paul. We both know that Layton's "private" clinic was the Shouldice, grandfathered in with the introduction of medicare, and strictly not-for profit. That's a pretty thin case to justify a claim of hypocrisy."

Well, Layton is on record saying that ALL "private-run" healthcare is bad. He makes no exceptions in that stance. He also defended his visit by saying he did not know it was a private clinic when a simple visit to their website tells you otherwise and just the appearance of the place itself screams "private".

If that isn't hypocrisy, then your definition must vary from the accepted definition provided here by the good folks at dictionary.com

"hypocrisy

n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have"

Was that factual enough for you Dawg?

Posted by: PeterZ at January 30, 2006 09:51 AM

---

Speaking of private vs public health care.

Aren't Dr. Morgentaler's clinics private - paid for by us - the public.

Just askin?

Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 30, 2006 09:56 AM

---

As someone who has had a Hernia operation through the public system I wish that the option for the Shouldice Clinic had been offered to me. The Shouldice method is different, and more expensive than what we mere taxpayers get. They sew up the individual layers of muscle to actually restore your original "system". The Medicare solution is that you get a "surgical mesh" insert that is sewn into the area to hold in the bulge. They then hope that it takes and release you the same day.

Shouldice method requires some bed rest to heal, Medicare method lets you recover from the gas on the stretcher in the hall and then calls for your ride to take you home. I have been there so this is fact Dr. Dawg. With the Medicare method you are a minimum burden on the system and cost less but it is an inferior fix. This is what Medicare has become, not the best medical care, but the best we can afford. That means lots of good but pricey procedures don't even get considered, we are the WalMart of Medical Care - that is the Canadian way.

My wife needed an MRI, can't get it in Ontario without a 9 month wait. The Doctor told her to go across the river to Hull and get one done tomorrow but to bring her credit card. Yes Quebec has "for profit" MRI clinics. Neat eh! Funny how all these things get glossed over. The Supreme Court was right, a government cannot allow its citizens to die, while providing poor medical service, and at the same time deny them access to another source of medical help i.e. Private.

I too wish our Medicare system worked, it doesn't, throwing money at it won't fix it especially since it is Federal money and a Provincial Jurisdiction. Maybe we should adopt the French or German Medicare model. It works over there why not here?

Posted by: commguys at January 30, 2006 10:40 AM

---

What I find funny is most of the University Leftist true believers become Conservative soon after they leave university, have a real job, pay taxes, have a wife and two kids, own a home, etc.....

funny how suddenly having to worry about the welfare of others moves your political views to the right...

or maybe it's just maturity.

Posted by: Sierra at January 30, 2006 10:50 AM

---

Angry, I suspect those who are calling for the torches are the most rabid of the rabble rousers, there probably wasn't much opportunity for reasoned discourse with these folks anyways. No big loss.

White Otter noted something interesting about Myers/briggs. If anyone is interested in trying to understand how others think differently I would suggest reading "Brain Dominance Profiles" by Dr. Carla Hannaford. It explores left/right brain functions and tri-brain (frontal, mid and reptillian or basal functions) theory.

Folks who argue points largely from an emotional perspective are working largely from the right hemisphere. The opposite holds for those who prefer to approach things from a logical perspective, left brain dominance. I am making sweeping generalizations for the purpose of brevity but for those interested I encourage the read.

I found the information when I was involved in delivering adult education and find the information usefull in trying to understand others. I might also suggest that a look into NLP (neuro-linguistic processing) will also help you to identify different information processing styles.

The ideal for induviduals is to utilize as much integrated thinking as possible.

I have a totally unproven theory (although supported with a lot of anecdotal evidence) that in a general sense

Left brain (logic) dominance is a trait of those who support the right of the political spectrum.

Right brain (emotional) dominance is a trait more often found in those who support the left of the political spectrum.

Before anybody gets all sniffy realize I am offering generalizations. Read the book.

Dr. Hannaford identifies 32 different degrees of left/right dominance all of which can be identified through physical left/ right sensory and kinisthetic preferences. (educational Kineseology)

If one wants reasoned discourse it helps to understand the listener and your own delivery style.

Syncro

Posted by: Syncrodox at January 30, 2006 11:13 AM

---

As I understand it, Shouldice looks and feels like a real public hospital, and everything is covered by OHIP. As noted before, it was grandfathered into the current system. Abortion clinics are privately-run, but again are covered by provincial health insurance. But there's a history there, of course.

This highlights the difficulty of trying to draw hard-and-fast distinctions. What we on the left don't want is the American system. What we do want is access.

Personally, I think everything should be covered under the public system, including those Gatineau-side MRIs. It would provide a spur to the government to look for effective public solutions to the current problems, rather than having to cover the private profit portion of the test as well. (As my cousin reasonably pointed out the other day, what's the moral difference between an X-Ray and an MRI?)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 11:37 AM

---

dr.dawg... "(As my cousin reasonably pointed out the other day, what's the moral difference between an X-Ray and an MRI?)"

what do you mean by this?

evan

Posted by: Evan at January 30, 2006 12:21 PM

---

Dr. Dawg, Shouldice is a Private clinic paid for by public funds, which I support. I would like to see more of them so that I can choose were I should go for medical help. Every day I walk around with this mesh in my groin thanks to Medicare, it really provides a focus point. One of my points is that our current system looks at how we can what we do now cheaper and faster. It doesn't encourage developement of new procedures or better practices.
It is all about big hospitals and bringing it all together to reduce cost. I thought SARS would have taught Toronto that doesn't work but another lesson lost. Lets do all our heart operations in one Hospital, so if it collapses we are toast.
Public healthcare is drowning in debt, the system is flawed, it cannot support new MRI machines as it can't even pay its own way now. It controls the number of doctors and where they practice, it controls the amount they can bill, it is all about control. When did it stop being about the patient? Probably after the first generation of doctors who grew up under Medicare.
There has to be hard choices about what is covered, elective surgery should be privately funded through private insurance, as should sex change operations although it is hard to imagine what the insurance policy would read.

Posted by: commsguy at January 30, 2006 12:27 PM

---

Doesn't Babble get tax money? Do you angry?

Like they are the gov't sponsored voice of the people???

If they do, someone pls tell Steve to cut it. Did they put in an expense claim during the election.

The left doesn't like debate bring up facts and they bring up emotion.

As long as you care while doing something dumb it doesn't matter what the outcomes are.

Gun control, murder rate went up. Can they put 2 and 2 together?

Nyet.

Posted by: DrWright at January 30, 2006 12:32 PM

---

Syncrodox, thanks for the post. I'm going to try to get a copy of that book.

I had forgotten the whole left-right setup in the human brain. I'd like to go to an NDP rally sometime and tell all they lefties that they're right-brain people - just to see how many people go ballistic.

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: Whiteotter at January 30, 2006 12:33 PM

---

Clips from two different comments above:

"My wife needed an MRI, can't get it in Ontario without a 9 month wait."

"Abortion clinics are privately-run"

Gee, maybe us pro-lifers are going about the whole abortion thing the wrong way. Maybe we should just insist that all abortions be performed in publicly-run clinics or hospitals. Then, when wait times inevitably hit nine months, our problems will be solved.

Posted by: Gary at January 30, 2006 02:49 PM

---

Evan: I simply mean that if I need an X-Ray, I go down to my local Dynacare and get one right away with a clinic requisition. Not part of the public system, any more than bloodwork is, btw. But if I want an MRI, I can wait till I'm dead or pay $1500 on the other side of the Ottawa River. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that both machines are diagnostic tools that look inside you. Sorry I wasn't clear before. That MRI ought to be covered out of OHIP until the public system is fixed so that the waiting lists are reduced to something reasonable.

As for the genius who appears to have discovered right-left brain traits for the first time: the amygdala is the source of emotion, and it is divided into two hemispheres, left and right. The right brain is not, therefore, the seat of emotion, but it is responsible for such Lefty things as creativity. It is where intuition is located, and also the ability to grasp the big picture.

This is really old news, and, by the way, incredibly reductionist to apply to politics. Sociobiology has long been associated with the Right, and small wonder: easy answers that reduce everything to genetic certainties, alibis for discrimination, racism, aggression and selfishness--it's all "human nature," right? (Funny what it all does to personal responsibility, but what the hell.)

Syncrodox should heed the old adage about a little learning being a dangerous thing, and do a little homework on this. Not to drop names, but Marshall McLuhan once told me he was a "right-hemisphere man." He was also profoundly conservative.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 30, 2006 02:52 PM

---

In everyday life I meet people I talk with them and will make a judgement to some degree on what I think of the person, we all do right?
I read something, absorb it kick it around decide if I believe or accept the words, or perhaps wait and see before I believe.Just because someone said does not make it true and most people are not as gullible as MSM would have us believe.I choose to read AGWN and SDA.I choose to read the MSM I do not believe everything I read or hear.i am a wee bit insulted that Canadians are perceived as so gullible!

Posted by: ian at January 30, 2006 06:18 PM

---

DrDawg
Are you the same person who often barks loudly about ad hominem attacks??

Might your statements below be described as such?

As for the genius who appears to have discovered right-left brain traits for the first time:

Syncrodox should heed the old adage about a little learning being a dangerous thing, and do a little homework on this.

Have you read any of Dr. Carla Hannafords published work around this as I refered to in my last post?

Did you notice that I also refered to tri-brain theory (reptilian or the base of the brain being where the amygdala is located) and aspects of NLP?

Did you notice I said I was making some sweeping statements for the sake of brevity??

Did you notice that I offered the tittle of one of Dr. Hannafords works for those interested in learning more?

Did you notice that I offered this information in the spirit of understanding others?

What you offer in return is dissapointing from someone who claims to prefer reasoned discourse.

I find it interesting that you make veiled reference to eugenics, something the CCF was fond of back in the day.

I was in no way boiling things down to genetic certianties. If you take the time to read the current research you may see what I mean. I found the information and the instruction I recieved a huge help in adapting lesson plans for delivery to adult students.

If as you say you have hung with Marshall McLuhan, then that probably makes you older than I am. I would have expected more of an open mind from someone who claims to be progressive and who must have been around for a while.

Maybe you can't teach an old Dawg new tricks.

Please let me know where I can read your most recent findings on the subject.

Syncro

Posted by: Syncrodox at January 30, 2006 09:12 PM

---

Dr Dawg

I would also be interested in your most recent publications in Tri-brain Theory, Educational Kineseology and Neuro-linguistic processing.

I would like to compare your findings to Dr Hannafords integrated theory and remediation models.

Thanks

Syncro

Posted by: Syncrodox at January 30, 2006 09:17 PM

---

Well, I read Dr. Dawg's links and I didn't see anything which surprised or shocked me whatsoever. Sorry, Doc, I guess my skin is thicker than yours or perhaps I approach those words from a different perspective.

His rambing blogs were filled with angry denunciations as well as a carefully pruned selection of quotes from assorted conservative blogs, designed to provoke an emotional response.

Interestingly enough, none of the blogs Dr. Dawg directed me to had any reply comments. Either no-one agrees with him (or disagrees with him) or no-one can be bothered to read what he has to say. Based on my personal reaction to his blogs, I would lead towards the latter.

I'm sure you folks will recall that I asked Dr. Dawg to include what he personally did to assist the Katrina victims. Strangely enough, he neglected to offer any examples of his compassionate nature. What conclusion can we draw from this?

Finally, I have ask this: what relevance does Dr. Dawg's accusations have to the subject of this blog? From what I can see, Dr. Dawg's comments serve only one purpose and it isn't fact filled logical discussion.

Posted by: Mac at January 30, 2006 11:23 PM

---

Mac:

"I'm sure you folks will recall that I asked Dr. Dawg to include what he personally did to assist the Katrina victims. Strangely enough, he neglected to offer any examples of his compassionate nature. What conclusion can we draw from this?"

I should surely not have to outline my personal contributions here, ones which I indeed made. Perhaps I might ask you to be forthcoming on this matter--I suspect that request might tone down your righteous indignation a little.

As for "the subject of this blog," if you're referring to this thread, the discussions have admittedly mutated a little. So what? That always happens, and I'm no more the cause of it than you are. Incidentally, my posts can be criticized for a number of things, but they do not "ramble."

Syncrodox:

I've inhabited the academic world a little too long to be intimidated by citation-quoting and credential-waving--it's the oldest game in the book, and it doesn't work on me. I have published nothing on the subject, but I would be interested in your own publications of relevance to linking political orientation with neurophysiology.

You will note that I confined my comments to precisely that reductionist application of neurophysiology to politics.

There is nothing ad hominem in suggesting that, in this connection, you simply don't know what you're talking about. You might look up the term to check what "ad hominem" actually means. You made claims without evidence. Pointing that out is not out of court.

I have no doubt that individuals process information in different ways, and that this has all kinds of relevance to adult education. Nothing new there. But you did, in fact, make sweeping statements for polemical effect. I note that you did not directly defend your earlier claim, for example, that emotions are located in the right hemisphere. Tri-brain theory, incidentally, isn't exactly news either. (Notice, in this connection, that I abstained from linking "conservatism" to the "reptile brain." I've done that in conversation for joking rhetorical effect, but I would never make the claim in seriousness.)

"Maybe you can't teach an old Dawg new tricks" is probably ad canem, incidentally, but I'll let it go.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at January 31, 2006 11:10 AM

---

If the weight is given in decimal parts of a carat, the figure should be accurate to the last decimal place. One type of treatment fracture filling conceals cracks in diamonds by filling them with a foreign substance. If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, the retailer should disclose two things that the weight is not exact dietarylinks.blogspot.com, and the reasonable range of weight for each fraction or the weight tolerance being used. musikmaniac.com http://www.musikmaniac.com/resources.php

Posted by: musikmaniac.com at March 20, 2006 04:30 AM

---

like your site ! Its very well !

http://xanax15.pisem.net/

Posted by: vicodin at June 14, 2006 04:51 PM

---

Hello, nice site look this:
shopping9.html
shopping19.html
health17.html
shopping20.html
entertainment21.html

End ^) See you

Posted by: computers at June 18, 2006 07:49 AM

---

auto10.html

Posted by: computers at June 18, 2006 08:03 AM

---