Tessa@98 – great insight. The same phenomenon usually happens in Washington state where the Cascade range is the great divide between coastal, urban Democrats and farmer-Republicans. I think the urban- rural split will continue to be with us for a very long time.

In this election, however, the suburbs seem to have been where the Liberals won the war. I think a much deeper analysis will have to be undertaken to fully understand why suburban values and voting patterns differ so much from those of their very close neighbours – cities – which are the likely locations of their jobs, entertainment and educational institutions.

@IanS #90

Yes and no. Hypocrisy is not limited to Progressives but it is not the only the Al Gores I take exception to.

Progressives represent a world view of increased wealth redistribution (including from future generations) and increased dependence on the state but with limited economic growth. This combination is going to lead to a very bad outcome because of an aging demographic that lives longer and will consume more health services.

This means during their productive years people must produce enough to support themselves and their family, those who don’t produce enough, those who provide public services and still set enough aside to pay for their health care and longer retirement. And young people are delaying entry into the workforce which shortens their productive years.

So no, I am not ok with Progressives that avoid hypocrisy.

brilliant,

Good to know you think everyone from Prince Rupert to Victoria is a parasite. BTW, where do you live?

@bill

Huh? Please take a basic logic course. Your arguments make no sense at all.

My point was and still is that Al Jazeera seems to have journalistic freedom. Probably more than the corporate media in North America.

Have no idea what you are getting at.

@Bill #102:

“Progressives represent a world view of increased wealth redistribution (including from future generations) and increased dependence on the state but with limited economic growth.”

Well, to the extent that you object to this (perhaps overly simplistic summary, IMO) worldview, I think we are largely in agreement then, at least in principle. I am particularly concerned about the propensity for wealth distribution from the future, in the form of debt.

@Richard #106

“Have no idea what you are getting at.”

I didn’t think it was that opaque so let me start again:

Qatar derives its considerable wealth (#1 in per capita income) from oil and is a major emitter of CO2 (again #1 in per capital emissions).

Qatar provides funding for Al Jezeera.

Al Gore has made a lot of money preaching that the emission of CO2 must be reduced or the planet is doomed.

Al Gore sold his network to Al Jezeera for a reported $100 million, proceeds derived from the oil just as surely if he invested in oil production himself.

Qatar allows Al Jezeera the journalistic freedom to promote the Progressive view on climate change (do you think Qatar is going to be sorry if the oil sands are shut down?).

Qatar, emitter of CO2, and Al Gore gets dispensation from Progressives because Al Jezeera produces a few articles on climate change:

Qatar/Al Gore: Al Jezeera journalistic independence

Bully: Pink Shirt

Homophobe: Float in Pride Parade.

Actually, the real hypocrisy is hiding behind a pseudonym while naming and shaming others for their business decisions. Unless Bill is willing to man up and state who he is, so we can judge for ourselves his ethical purity, his opinion is worth less than the beer cans in my blue box… and I’ve been on a health kick of late… so do the math.

Ummm, I addressed Bill’s point directly. The conversation went off-topic long ago. Do try to keep up.

@boohoo #111

So you cited as an authority on hypocrisy someone you had never heard of before because you just liked that idea. I’m not sure what you feel quilty about but I don’t think it is hypocrisy as the rest of the world uses it (Chris Keam excepted) as the Wikipedia entry goes on to say:

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of “hypocrisy” in Rambler No. 14:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself

But perhaps you have never of Samuel Johnson either and prefer Monbiot because you like his idea better.

Bill,

Cited as an authority? I linked to a newspaper article that was on topic. I know you really want to pin me into some easily definable, stereotypical box so you can just ignore my points, but come on man.

And I’ll ask you again, what’s your point? You act as though you aren’t a hypocrite. You sit here smugly just belittling, mocking, tearing down—for what? What are you trying to accomplish?

It’s really easy to sit here and shit on everyone else, label them as ‘Progressives’ or ‘socialists’ or whatever other ignorant characterizations you want without bringing anything to the discussion yourself.

I admit I’m flawed, I don’t always act 100% true to my beliefs or aspirations but that’s reality. To sit here and pretend you do, or to cynically just call other people out for it…how depressing for you.

Bill–no, nothing, eh? Coward.

@Chris Keam #119

But Chris. Are we not all hypocrites? As that great Progressive George Monbiot wrote:

“Sure, we are hypocrites. Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. ”

Have you never done anything or acted in a way that was contrary to what you wish you could have done if things were different?

Total non answer Bill. Stop being a coward.

@Chris Keam

“I think you are quite welcome to come clean on your investments and any financial considerations that inform your opinion. In fact there’s nothing stopping you from subjecting yourself to the same scrutiny and criticism that you feel comfortable delivering toward others”

Chris Keam April 24, 2013:

“All the money and time in the world and the best they can do is take selfies of their conspicuous consumption? I don’t get the sense it’s a subtle protest against tax rates of anti-poverty politics. They are just useless consumers who foolishly waste monetary resources on propping up their vanity, instead of helping those in need. I find it revolting.”

Care to reveal all the details of how you spend your money?

Frank, I am sure Chris will appreciate you jumping in and bailing him out and you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I am curious why boohoo and Chris were spared your admonishment. Perhaps it is bad form to criticize a fellow Progressive.

“Care to reveal all the details of how you spend your money?”

My point has consistently been about how someone gains money w/r/t to judging others, not how they spend it. Your examples don’t match. And sorry Frank, you are quite right. I’ll leave Bill to his false comparisons and try to stay on topic.

@Chris Keam #130

So it is perfectly acceptable to judge how one spends their income but it is totally unacceptable to judge how they gain the income that they spend. Keep torturing common sense like that and you are bound to attract the attention of Amnesty International.

“Anonymity is morally defensible when its purpose is to protect one’s career or livelihood, but it becomes a form of cowardice — and thus reprehensible — when used to provide cover for character assassination”

http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/the-ethics-of-anonymity/29097

In Chris’ case it’s a question of too much information and all of it the same.
His identity is proudly proclaimed, but that doesn’t make what he says interesting or worthwhile. Bill could be anybody, but he has an interesting take on things. Plus he keeps it short.

CK
The Lewandowski paper was retracted rewritten and disappeared again.It was absolute junk science and they flat out lied about their methods.
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/why-publishers-should-explain-why-papers-disappear-the-complicated-lewandowsky-study-saga/
I could link to several articles that completely debunk it but you probably wouldn’t read them anyway.

I think a much deeper analysis will have to be undertaken to fully understand why suburban values and voting patterns differ so much from those of their very close neighbours – cities – which are the likely locations of their jobs, entertainment and educational institutions.

Frank Ducote 100

Think back to Bay Area San Francisco. Does downtown still rule? How much diversification has the high-tech sector brought? Will San Jose ever challenge? Transportation choices have been outstripped by much smaller Portland. And the cultural scene is not what you get in L.A.

CK#141
You might want to check the dates before you throw more crap at the wall to see what sticks.You certainly don’t understand what the problems are and they didn’t address them in your link,just more fluff and propaganda.But of coarse you would have to read it to understand it,maybe read the comments at you’re link would lead to some enlightenment.Youre link was March 22,the retraction post was March 28th.I wont bother with this anymore,have a nice day.

@gman $142

You know that Chris has to have the last word and it is like playing whack-a-mole when he works himself into a corner. That is why I did not respond to his rant about anonymity and point out that the vast majority of commentors on both sides of the issues are anonymous and some on both sides are equally adept at tossing out the odd personal barb. As well, I did not ask how you can assassinate the character of someone who is posting anonymously. Instead, like you I will not bother with this anymore and let his comments from 133 to 135 go unchallenged.

Bill,

I’d gladly let you have the last word if you ever actually responded to questions without just calling me a ‘Progressive’.

So, have at er.