I think the real conspiracy is one that goes back to the early days of Christian fundamentalism and the recruitment of moronic believers, and how they approached young boys and girls and made them read the bible and go to Sunday School, telling them all the while that if they didn't their souls would burn in hell come judgment day. Isn't it sad that such a movement has received the Good Housekeeping seal of approval? I think it's time fundamentalists all around the world transformed themselves into pagans. It's never too late to see the light.

I think the interesting thing is how much pagan there actually is in the movement.

Conspiracy? Of what .. to take over the world by staging one big gay disco and playing Cher till all us "breeders" can't take it anymore and knock ourselves off?? Get real.

""Let's just say if ... anybody that used Colgate toothpaste, their life expectancy was lowered by 10, 15 years. What do you think would happen to Colgate toothpaste? It would be outlawed. Well, we know that's what happens to men living a gay lifestyle."

He also said homosexuals can transform themselves into heterosexuals."

Wow, to compare human life to some minty white cr*p in a tube... I think he should worry about all the needle sharing drug users before he goes out to clean up those AIDS ridden gay men.

It's so hard for me to try to believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and views with I read just plain junk like this...

Conspiracy proof: all you have to do is play "Its Raining Men" backwards and you'd know....

here's the loop ( ) ---------------- here's me. Out of it.

How do these people hang such bigotry on being a Christian. In reality. they all quote the old testament. Try and find a passage where Jesus isn't anything but a way out liberal? These people would hate him if they met him. Totally anti establishment, anti church, pro women - these are the types that had him crucified. If Jesus came back he would be protesting the WTO, maybe be gay and would certinally be appalled, as he was in his own time, at the bigotry and hypocrisy of established institutional religions.

There - the pissed off Rob

These were terrible comments that should result in his resignation as a member of Parliament. Spencer should have realized that only pop culture icons like Eimem are allowed to make such hateful, inciteful comments. Ironically, his pop culture fans sing right along with him. And worship accused child molesters like returning heroes. Regrettably, these idiot fans will be permitted to be "breeders" and have children of their own.Now that is a scary thought.

Wayne, you would have done well in a non-democratic society. You are confusing pop culture with governance. Pop culture is not important despite what "ET" says. What this western visagoth seemed to forget was that he was in government, was important and that the loose change in the brain needs some organizing before he opens his yap. If that is western alienation, stay alienated.

Pop culture is not important, but it does influence the minds of the impressionable. On second thought, maybe it has been more important then our generation realized. When I hear kids humming along to songs like "You broke my heart, so I busted your jaw!", I wonder what kind of influence it is having on kids.(I never watch ET, Survivor or Joe Millionaire - just The Simpsons)

I agree that it has become too important - not that it should go away but have a place. I am a punk generation kid whose parents allowed The Stranglers' "Bring on the Nubiles" to be played in the house when I was 14 - and the Sex Pistols and Clash, etc. But I understood the role punk played in my social understanding - it was much about things not being good enough given what could be. I still draw from that in my life. In <i>Songbook</i> Hornby makes the ponit that today pop culture is massively more pervasive - I think that that it can latently be equated with governance and commerce. Certainly in my time of teenness any band that allowed its art to be associated with a product was a bad band. The relationship between pop culture and other components of culture needs dissassociating.

I agree that pop culture is both too important to our society and getting out of control. Sometimes I listen to lyrics of songs and my jaw hits the floor. "Can they even think that let alone sing it/say it?" Eminem is a nice example of pop culture gone mad. However while he might be one of the biggest things to grace the music scene when he's got something fresh, look how quickly he's forgotten when he's not in your face 24/7. I wonder how much harm he's really doing? Maybe more then I like to believe, maybe less then we know. Who knows.

I do however often think to myself, wow, it's only going to get worse from here. In a world that believes, move forward and never backward, image in 20 years what our world will be like on the pop culture scene. All songs will have to push some kind of boundary to get played... sex scenes in tv shows or in the movies will be practically porn (a lot of them are now) and imagine how undressed our teenage pop stars will be then... and why? Because no one believes in putting a stop to all the madness.

I don't mean full out censorship, but someone needs to step up and say hey, enough is enough. Someone with the power.. BUT it's the people with the power that scare me more then pop culture icons. It's one thing for Eminem to tell us he hates gay people, it's entirely different for someone to tell us they're criminals. Or for the government to say hey, they don't count as people, they don't deserve the same benefits as everyone else. What happens when the punk kid who takes Eminem too literally goes out and bashes a gay person and the government says sure, that's all right, they're criminals anyway? Now that's what's truly scary.

Put it this way, if I were a gay man and I was put in a room with Slim Shady there and George W, I'd be more scared of Mr President than Mr Mathers. At least he doesn't hide behind the Bible when he tells people off..

I considered this comment on a 2 hour drive north, and I am gonna say it, regardless of an apparent softening of your position...

I laud and defend your rights as guaranteed under the Charter to disagree with who or what I consider important (or interesting - or offensive. Ain't free speech grand?).

I would challenge your inference (or what I have interpreted as such, written between the lines) that those whom you consider unimportant should be allowed to make unchallenged, hateful comments, while those of "importance" need to answer to a higher standard.

In regards to your comments about pop culture and governance, I would argue there has been a blending over the past few years that has seen entertainment cast it's ugly shadow everywhere. Inarguably, the entertainment industry has encroached into all aspects of our society, and therefore can be argued as significant or "important". Case in point; Sports - where million-dollar athletes are frequently asked to comment on the economy, and where the true entertainment focus is frequently on the clown mascot, not the turning of a 6-4-3 double play. News - where networks focus their reporting on the antics of a spoiled-brat pop-tart and we hear endless stories about Ben and Jel-lo. Law - where lawyers trade in their practice for the speaking engagement circuit after defending a high profile entertainment figure against charges of murdering his wife. Music - where more thought goes into the video then the lyrics or harmony/melody (These days, there is no harmony/melody) Charity events - where charities piggy back on star power to get out their message. To ignore these facts is truly short sided and a symptom of denial.

I feel all hateful comments about race, religion and sexual preference deserve equal judgment, regardless of whether or not the are on somebody's list of "important" people. And should be voiced, whether or not politically correct, whether or not it plays into the hands of those who seek to spin it as offensive.

I don't really think I am disagreeing, Wayne, but there are important differences on the consequences to the speaker when one is in government and one is in media. We have speech limits in the criminal code which apply to everyone and if they need tightening that is where it is done. I make a big difference between the obscene and the hateful statement. A hateful statement made by a private citizen still has to pass the criminal code test. A public official has a stricter test in that the job is gone if you are hateful or even I suppose obscene. Short of that, it is fair game. What is hateful? What is obscene? I bought the Dayglow Abortions tape in 1990 specifically because the Ottawa police declared it criminally obscene - it isn't and I still enjoy the juvenile humour.