Mad_Michael

This is a valid statement. The alleged purpose of life and human beings in general is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. One doesn't need to be 'God's special creation' in order to have self-worth and respect for life. Right. Same with the theory of gravity I'm sure.

"However, in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation." http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm You appear to be unaware of the precepts of epistemology that govern the philosophy of science. Verification and observation are used to create theories. However, for a theory to have scientific standing it MUST be theoretically falsifiable. Human science cannot 'prove' any theory at all - that is epistemologically impossible. And this is the line that divides science from religious doctrine. Religious doctrine may perhaps be verified and observed, but it can never be falsified, which is why religious doctrines can never be considered 'scientific' theories.

No. Off-shore jurisdiction falls to the Federal level since coastal water doesn't respect provincal boundries. Coastal waters have always been under federal jurisdiction in respect of fisheries, coast guard, navy, etc. under the BNA. Issues of coastal and off-shore jurisdiction fall under the realm of international law, a field to which no Province may claim to. International law is federal jurisdication by definition.

True, that would be a 'no-brainer' as you say. The real question is, why is Bush-Cheney working so hard on the 'access to oil with terrorism' option? Encouraging more terrorism can't be considered a good plan by any standard.

Excellent post.

Ergo, my dissing of him as Liberal leader potential. Good hair and tv style is the minimum standard for a political career. It is totally insufficient for the top job. Agreed. He's a lightweight that doesn't deserve serious consideration. Good looking, great hair and tv style, but again, light on the accomplishments. Hey - I'm a Toronto born urban intellectual with lots of years in academia and a pro-liberal bias, which is to say that I should like the guy - but there is just something about Ignatieff that I don't like or don't trust. I don't know what it is, but I just don't like the guy. And in my opinion, a decade or more of tenure at a serious university is absolutely NOT good training for Party leader or PM. And I really don't like the fact that he's lived outside of Canada for so long. That's all well and fine for any other citizen, but it seems wrong for one who seeks to be PM. I believe Rae's the best choice that is readily available. The guy is a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, has 'good hair and tv style' and his convention campaign speech was masterful (the only one who left the podium and spoke without notes, flipping effortlessly between English and French). His bilingual credentials are excellent, he has lots of 'front bench' experience in the hot-house of the Legislature, he has proven that he can win a major election campaign and he has the executive experience of being Premier. These are pretty solid credentials for party leader and/or PM. Most significantly, during the last leadership campaign, Rae had the best public polling numbers in every Province except Ontario (which was split with Ignatieff and Kennedy). This is a very important and traditional Liberal electoral weapon. Liberals can win seats in every Province and they all add up. And seats in every Province builds a stronger governing mandate. PET was loved most in the early days and then again during his retirement. The historians have been rather kind to Pierre though. Safe to say that the Trudeau name is a powerful one for Canadian politics. Not universally loved, that's for sure, but there is still powerful charisma associated with the name. You can see that in Justin. But this youngster doesn't have a law degree or a Ph.D. or much of a resume beyond his own last name. He looks very good and he's guarenteed to be a political celebrity for the rest of his life in Canada - but without some serious credentials, he's way too young, a lightweight and a total longshot. The Carlyle Group relationship is toxic. That directly connects up with the US neo-con boys there and that is a major political liability in Canada right now. You can hang the tag of "Haliburton toady" to him and he'd go down in political flames. The day McKenna signed with Carlyle, that ended any future political career in Canada (federally speaking). I'm sure McKenna knows this.

Doesn't mean a Yank can't write a Canadian political advertisement. Have to wonder about a "Yank" who is obsessed with a Canadian political forum. I have to wonder about a Canadian who's obsessed about a "Yank" on a Canadian political forum. Absolutely right! As a Canadian who follows US politics and actively participates in US political forums, all I can say is 'welcome' to any American who may choose to participate in a Canadian political forum. Likewise to any Brits, Aussies, Euros or anyone else from around the planet who might, perchance, show some interest in our fine land! That being said, I do reserve the right to dislike your signature quotes.

perhaps the largest free-standing glow stick, but I bet Hong Kong would be upset by the kudos the Toronto lightshow is getting. The Hong Kong Symphony of Lights is phenomenal! http://www.tourism.gov.hk/symphony/ The pictures of Hong Kong are truly spectacular! That would be wonderful to see live. The key to the CN Tower lighting is that it is totally dynamic - like a (tall and skinny) programmable neon billboard. It just started up a couple of days ago - apparently inspired by the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower being similarly lit up recently. Given that I live in the heart of downtown Toronto, 29 floors up in the air and the CN tower is only about a mile away - I can watch the tower light show sitting here at my desk, or sitting on the couch in the living room (or out on the balcony) so this is big news for me personally since it dominates the view out my windows! Anyway - I apolgise to the moderators for this minor thread-jacking of off-topic chatter. In a vague attempt to return to the topic, I shall nominate G.W.Bush (and lots of his administration and supporters) for the invasion of Iraq. The plan of G.W.Bush to improve 'security' for the USA, has stirred up a hornet's nest of violence in the heart of the Middle East - as if that particular part of the world didn't have enough intractable problems or simmering cauldrons of violence already. This appears to me to be the very definition of stupid.

Damn good point. Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears. I don't believe the ears are deaf. Just perhaps refusing to listen. Rather like a child who puts their hands over their ears and says "la-la-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".

Damn good point. Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears. Actually, most heterosexuals couldn't care less whether fags convert. Most of us would just like fags to shut up about it already. No one is going after homosexuals...homosexuals are coming after us and our institutions and our approval. I for one would never say another word about faggotry if I didn't have it shoved in my face on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure that most homosexuals don't want your approval given that they are apparently doing so much to annoy you. Indeed, given your stated opinions, most homosexuals would likely hold you in extreme contempt, rather than seek your approval. Btw, your assertion that homosexuals are seeking your approval tells us more about you than it presumes to say about homosexuals. Just sayin'.

It is only a valid theory if it is proven to be an 'established theory' backed by laws as with Ohms Law, Newton's Laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Currently evolution has no credibility. "If the theory gains general acceptance in competition with others, then it may become an established theory. Its credibility is improved if it leads to the development of other theories and ultimately to a general advance in scientific knowledge. Established theories are sometimes called "laws," as in Ohms law, Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics." http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm Well, at least your post is colourful! You appear to have a rather bizarre view of how science operates. And science isn't a democracy - scientists don't vote on the decision of 'establishing' scientific theories. Theories are either falsified or they are not. Btw, "Newton's Laws" are based upon Newton's theory of gravity (which has not yet been falsified, though Einstein did find a very slight flaw in the theory).

Not really. The media might have you believe otherwise, but they like to spin things. Rae didn't actually do much of anything as a one-term Premier of Ontario. The day he was sworn in, he inherited a massive (hidden) deficit from the Conservatives. And the Bay Street set pretty much declared war against Rae on principle. And the Union set pretty much demanded that Rae launch a socialist revolution. With no money and the fanatics screaming at both ends of the political spectrum, there really wasn't much Rae could do. The perception of the Rae "mess" in Ontario is a manufactured product mostly of the unionists screaming about how they were screwed by Rae or the mass media who needed political conflict to sell their product. On the whole, I'd say that Rae's administration was relatively competent under extreme conditions that prevented any possible policy initiatives. Indeed, due to the hidden deficit the Conservatives passed on to Rae, he engaged in a policy of fiscal discipline (and was considered the anti-christ by the unionists and socialists because of it). So on the whole, I'd say Rae did a decent job in 'surviving' that term of office given that so many vested interests had so many axes to grind and Rae was a pawn of no one. And Rae proved that he is fiscally responsible under extreme conditions. That is very admirable in my book, given how so many conservative governments have turned out to be utterly irresponsible fiscal nightmares (Mulroney in Ottawa, Davis or Harris in Ontario, Bush in the USA, etc.). Feel free to enlighten me about one or two substantive political accomplishments of Tobin. I'm aware of none.

Damn good point.

Sorry I cannot agree. I am all for the legalization but to suggest that it is govt 's fault for the toxic environment of grow op homes, no way. If the government didn't seek to control behaviour by legislating anti-pot laws, then there is no reason to believe that any commercial pot-growing operation would ever be located in a residential area - it is too inefficient for proper production. Commercial pot-growers have rationally chosen residential houses as the best solution. The government has determined that solution by eliminating other options. Laws don't control behaviour - they only exact penalties for that behaviour. Ergo, the government law is at fault - it shuffles behaviour in a way that is unacceptable to the health of the citizenry. Our police and our laws make this utterly and completely impossible. The law is at fault.

""The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5 http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html Pointing out that the theory of evolution is not as yet complete, or may contain theoretical flaws, in no way shape or form puts it on the level of creationism. The theory of evolution is ultimately falsifiable - every proposition can (ultimately and theoretically) be tested, verified or falsified. Thus, it is a valid scientific theory until such time as it is sufficiently falsified. The theory of creationism is not in any way falsifiable. It can never be verified, falsified, proven or observed. Thus, it is not a valid scientific theory. Thus, no matter how many flaws one may presume to point out in evolutionary theory, it is still a scientific theory in a way that creationism isn't. Ergo, creationist theory and evolutionary theory are not competing theories in any way. They are like apples and oranges.

True no subsidies. Apparently quite profitable. If only the bums would leave some cash behind to fix the house after they are gone....but alas, criminals.............. It is our laws that causes the problem by criminalising them. No illegality, then there is no reason to hide in residential houses and they could operate in industrial parks with proper safety equipment like every other high-tech manufacturer. But our laws prevent this. Ergo, I don't hold the growers to blame for the toxic houses. The primary cause of toxic houses is the government laws that forcefully evicts the growers and then turns the house back to the residential market.

It'll be Tobin, Manly or McKenna. Tobin most likely. Now there is a line up that would have me tearing up my Liberal membership card. Tobin? You've got to be kidding! And Manly makes Dion look interesting!

I'd predict a re-match of the two front-runners from the last leadership convention. Picking the 4th place guy was obviously a bad choice. Ignatieff and Rae, head to head. Btw, I don't see McKenna as a particularly strong candidate. Yes, he would be a good candidate, but I see absolutely no reason to see him as particularly strong - he has virtually no profile in Ontario (for example). I'm a bit of a political junky and I can barely remember which Maritime province he was Premier of, let alone any accomplishments he might have.

Yes, the 905 belt is where we grow our most important cash crop in Toronto... No subsidies for the farmers either!

How about 407? A toll highway built parallel to 401 - supposedly to 'relieve congestion'. Now we have two congested highways standing side by side. And someone thought this was a good idea. 401 was actually a pretty darn good highway when they built it. And yes, it is the busiest highway on the planet (so they say). On an opposite note, kudos to the smart people who thought of lighting up the CN tower with neon bright coloured lights! The nightly lightshow is fantastic! Toronto is now home to the largest free-standing 'glowstick'!

Personally, I go with Fichte's assertion.

While I don't have data at hand for the same study in Canada, I'd be willing to bet that Canadian numbers would be significantly different on the basis that Canadian 'weekly-church-going' figures are usually about half of what they are in the USA, suggesting that the 'creationists' are probably a lesser percentage in Canada. Like I said though, this is speculation/projection - I've never seen any decent data on this particular question.

Critical thinking skills allow me to determine the fallacy of your assertions. Those who have critical thinking skills are the ones who get promoted above you in the workplace. Critical thinking is probably second only to "ass-kissing" as the most important skills that universities teach - and corporations value. Alternatively, your argument suggests that universities ought to just give courses on Britney Spears and Hollywood movies.

Hmmmm... we have 'em. The Auditor Generals are independant. Understaffed so they can't get it all, but ya, they are there. The Auditor General only looks at specific instances of Government spending. They have no mandate or legal requirement to audit the actual Government income/expense statement.

Do fat people? Thrillseekers? Alcoholics? Stuntmen? Car Drivers? Pedestrians? Cyclists? Skateboarders? Those who eat salt/sugar? etc. Fact is, a majority of people engage in behaviour that is technically or potentially harmful to themselves.