betsy

You bring up an excellent point. bullying. I hadn't considered that aspect, but it does make sense when compared to learned behaviour. bullies are often both the victim and the agressor, and this contrary set of circumstances might provide the mental stimulus to go off the deep end. Can you expand on this a bit? What bullying to some...may just be harmless kidding around. As I said, who knows what goes on in the minds of people at some given time (taking into consideration a lot of other factors involved...in other words, a typical "bad day" when everything seem to go wrong can just be the perfect trigger for someone who cannot handle the situation.) It could also be due to the mental imbalance, some may have perceived slight where actually none was intended. Perhaps, someone "carrying a chip on his shoulder" is a perfect symptom of someone who may be unable to face and deal with everyday life...and this could either trigger a mass murder....or for some, suicide. Take for example suicide among the young people in the reserves or Indian communities. If I understand it correctly, you've got major problems with your youth. The high percentage in one population and environment compared to the rest of the country is indeed alarming. I bet factors that trigger mass murder could also trigger suicide.

Look, as you've said the US had already long profiled serial killers. With all the advanced technology and available resources to them, you'd think that they'd already come upon a solution or a way to stop anyone or at least prevent any of these killings. Just about anything could set off or trigger a serial or mass murderer. It could just be the way somebody looked at him the "wrong way". Who knows what goes on in the mind of a person at a particular time. Stress...getting fired...splitting up with a partner. Remember the killer in the bus transpo maintenance who was apparently teased often by his co-workers? But since we're trying to come up with ideas to help our brothers and sisters...here's my contribution. Perhaps we should consult Dionne Warwick?

As I was saying earlier, if you and Rue want to discuss the Christian impact on Aboriginal people, then start a thread saying so and don't start a tangent here, please. To be honest, what you are saying is interesting, and i'd be happy to join you in conversation, but we just can't do it here. s'allright? Sorry.

Do you mean the " good christians" who think they're Christians...sodomizing their way through every orphanages? And the "good christians" who think they're Christians...abusing and wielding their power over the minorities? And also the chieftains (are they christians btw) who had forsaken and mistreated their own people, and instead lining their own pockets? Yep. They don't fall under the category of "serial killers."

Unless we've become psychics (ala-Minority Report)....we can't usually tell for these people are masters at deceptions too. They blend in quite easily. They are mentally sick. They're unlike suicide bombers or Islamic terrorists (religiously motivated, where-in we know majority comes from certain parts of the world), therefore it is easier...and reasonable...to profile.

Studies and research we've seen are for the US (and Canada). If we have access to information from other parts of the globe, it is possible that we'll find evidence that this phenomenom is not confined to just one particular group. Besides, only the most horrific , the most body-count and sensational cases are usually highlighted. Therefore, how can we conclude your statement as fact if all areas have not been covered? Here are some interesting read which I googled. This site is teeming with information, however I purposefully just posted those from ethnic groups. Tadaaaa....the Mexicans or the Latinos are prolific too. Juan Corona – The Machete Murderer Juan Corona was a labor contractor who hired migrant workers for produce fields in California. In a murder spree lasting six weeks, he raped and murdered 25 men and buried their machete-hacked bodies in the orchards owned by local farmers. Pedro Alonzo Lopez, known as the ‘The Monster of the Andes,’ was one of history’s most horrific serial killers. He responsible for the brutal murders of over 350 children. He bragged of his crimes and promised to do it again if ever released from prison. Yet in the middle of the night he was taken from prison to a van then driven to the Columbia border and set free. Richard Ramirez – The Night Stalker Satanic worshipper, serial killer and rapist, Richard Ramirez, was named The Night Stalker, after terrorizing Los Angeles during a year long killing and rape spree that resulted in his conviction of 43 counts, including 13 murders and other charges including burglary, sodomy, and rape. Atlanta Child Murders In the 1970s Atlanta was one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. A series of murders of black children and teenagers began to emerge, throwing an unwelcome spotlight on the entire city. The murders, believed at that time, to be the work of a racist white group did nothing to recommend the city to tourists and new business opportunities. http://crime.about.com/od/serial/ WHAT ARE THEY Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite....tml%3Fsect%3D20

If I'm not mistaken, serial killers tend to prey on victims belonging to the same race as theirs....and as white people are predominant in this country, of course it would seem that serial killers are mostly white. Mind you, that Chinese guy (Ng?) had killed several women (mostly white). Other countries in Asia and Africa must probably have their own problems with serial killers. As for mass murderers...the US had had quite a few mass murderers belonging from different race.

That is what I'm saying. With the way the UN is performing....it's like there's nothing at all anyway.

The US, by a country mile. Who was the first to arrive at the scene with aid after the tsunami in Indonesia? Australia and the US. The UN arrived a week later and seemed more concerned about finding a 5 star hotel first. And what was the UN's reply towards the US about the Tsunami aid? MORE MONEY PLEASE. And the Leftists" response towards the US? MORE CRITICISMS. "Oh, they're so rich that they can easily afford to give more." And while the UN was scrambling to get its act together to bring aid to the tsunami victims....the US was already doing DAILY FLIGHTS bringing relief and assistance! The UN is all a bunch of bureacratic talks and hardly any action! It's like the cliche' potrayal of cops in movies....they always arrive late on the scene. They do more harm than good in a lot of cases...since most probably other rich countries would've just done what the US did: Move with their own initiative in providing assistance. Instead, they get caught up in all these talks...and gets bogged down. No one wants to make a move without the UN's go-ahead signal. And correct me if I'm wrong, the promised full pledges of monetary assistance have not YET reached the tsunami victims...a year and a half later since the tragedy struck! Well, it's some sort of a "pack-mentality" among nations. I guess the leftists needs to "feel-good" about something...even if it's just an illusion.

Think of the word alternative, if what you are going to scrap and replace is something that is effective and useful. The UN is not. The leftists hang on to it like a security blanket that will ward off evil. As Michael Hardner pointed out, "lawlessness happens." And I must add, "So does war." Whether you have the UN or not. Actually with the UN seemingly "brokering disputes"...war and strife besiege so many parts of the world right now. Speaking of the League of Nations. How ironic that you should mention it....when a few years back, a few editorials had compared the dysfunctional UN to that old organization...and suggested that just like its predecessor, it's time that the UN gets dismantled.

What are you saying, then? While I agree, the UN has flaws, at is, as I understand, undergoing 'reform' - it does not change the fact that an institution like the United Nations is required in the world, if only a place to broker disputes between nations in a forum that is as public as possible. Religion and nationalism - pick your poison. Both of these ideas are detrimental to the advances of a global human civilization - one that stops spending on gigantic nuclear place-annihilators and starts the science down the long path of colonizing space. Spreading our eggs to many baskets - if you will - seems the natural destiny of the human race, for what are people if not explorers? We don't even have a national space program. Oh yeah, we have that robotic arm thingy. Yay. Meanwhile, the International Space Station begins to mothball, and the United States is using a space-plane designed and built in the 60s using solid state electronics. Was it really surprising that there was a critical failure? Most space based programs are satellites designed to aid a military system of one form or another. The irony. "Broker disputes"....with some or most leaders' decisions based not for what is right and just....but on "what do I (or the motherland) have to gain from this." So you see countries siding with and backing dangerous despotic dictators.

I don't know much about UN police actions or peacekeeping, but that was an analogy. I believe that they were used in Cyprus, beginning about 40 years ago. The UN 40 years ago is quite different from the UN now!

I'm sure that all the UN means to you is a group of people generating propaganda that offends your political sensibilities, but they have saved many lives around the world through emergency relief, medical assistance, vaccinations and other programs. Your opinion that it should be replaced 'even if there's no replacement' is pretty outrageous, given what they do. WHAT COUNTRY provides the MOST FINANCIAL AID? Quick and organized response in cases of emergencies? Don't we, through CIDA provide assistance? Other rich countries probably have their own foreign programs as well. We save lives...with or without the UN. Why do we need the UN for the things you've mentioned? Why do you need the approval of a bunch of degenerate dictators, whom you know have their own political agenda? Can't well-developed countries such as Canada stand on its own when it comes to decision-makings?

Who are you talking to? MBurns. Black Dog. Anyone else who doesn't have the basic knowledge about global warming and it's expected results. Probably you as well... I have searched this thread for any input you might have had about the argument...and I have not found a single one...except for your short comment calling everyone "ignorant." At least the others have had something to say about the issue...whereas your only "contribution" to the thread is to hurl insults to those who had given their two cents. I can't help but conclude that what you said so far is all you know. I think you've mistook this for another topic. This thread is not about "Show and Tell Your Ignorance."

The news reports could get anyone feeling paranoid. At times I could swear that murder and mayhem is everywhere due to what I read....only to be baffled by contradicting reports that crime is actually down. Most child crimes are perpetuated by those related or known to the child. If someone is determined enough to abduct a child in a public place in broad daylight....you think school busing will deter them? What about that pervert who abducted Cecilia from her own bedroom? Kids have been walking to and from school for years where I live...and since we moved here (12 years), we've never had any incidents of abductions. If security is really a concern, I guess our citizens will be creative enough to think of ways to go about it. A "group walk" could be more fun.

And what will we replace it with ? The UN is not credible. It's biased. And unreliable where it's needed. Remember Rwanda? What's the point of hanging on to something useless? Even if there's no replacement?

*Insert laugh track* But as usual, when it comes to liberals, the real reason why Mr Fancy Pants™ is foaming at the mouth is this: And Mr Fancy Pants' statements are not outrageous and dangerously duplicitous. You should've seen Jane Taber tried to trip Rona Ambrose on Question Period. Jane's partisanship had clearly shown. Some of these media are blindly spewing the same lines as the party. She smugly announced the interview with Ambrose indicating she placed the Minister on the hot seat.....and yet all she did was get excited (practically telling Ambrose she's a hypocrite for still going to the discussion table), and got Ambrose to clarify on issues. In the end, it was Ambrose who had a smug look as she patiently explained to Jane, who ended up looking ignorant. And yes, it's anti-Americanism that's got them foaming in the mouth.

What mistakes would we be repeating by leaving the UN? Please clarify.

I can. I propel myself to the grocery store which is approx. 15 minutes away...and I try to do this everyday. It's my exercise. We have to start doing away with school buses for kids living nearby schools. Children have been used to being given rides, not to mention being programmed by mom and dad on a habit to use the car even for just a trip down the block. Everyone of you probably heard this worn-out line from your middle-aged parents..."During my days...." It's cliche'. But it's true. But of course, let's be practical about this. It depends how far you need to propel yourself. There's no point in cutting back on rest and walking yourself to fatigue....you won't last long on that, physically and mentally. If your aim is to help the environment, the best solutions I could think of is "scooters" and bikes. Apparently it's starting to be popular in Toronto. Consumes less gas. They'll just have to come up with a way to encourage that, especially in big, congested cities.

The question is: are you really, "dead?"

I would say probabley greater, under this current system you would be in a class of thousands, while if the law was switched you would be in a group of millions, more organs to go around means that desperation would not be a factor. Just curious...how long can they keep organs? From what I understand, it's not like blood that could be stored for long periods of time, but of course I may be wrong.

I repeat again: I don't trust the UN! It's peopled by mostly dictators and corrupt governments. We must untangle ourselves from it.

Well, I see it more practical to clear the air we breathe of pollutants. We already see the effects in the rising cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases that may be caused by it. Why should we waste our billions on something that doesn't really have any legs to stand on...when we can use the money on something that will have a realistic positive effect? Besides, Harper government are looking for alternatives. Earth had been producing tons of carbon for eons (forest fires)...I'm sure it's not a do-or-die-it's-now-or-never scenario that the environmental activists and vote-seeking politicians want us to believe. They're scare-mongering. They're the latest version of Doom-sayers. Here's an interesting read. "Natural Global Warming September 4, 2003 by Dennis T. Avery For a decade, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has pushed the theory of fierce man-made global warming, supposedly caused by burning fossil fuels. It would theoretically drive temperatures up as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The IPCC wants American to join the Kyoto Protocol, quickly doubling U.S. energy prices, without making much impact on the warming. (Kyoto would be a 'down payment' on much more severe energy cutbacks.) However, most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much greenhouse gas was released by human factories and cars. The headlines scream that recent temperatures are "the highest ever recorded"—but the records go back only to 1860, during the world's recovery from the Little Ice Age. During Bush's term, scientists delving into the earth's history have found quite a different global warming: an ancient, natural, 1500-year warming-cooling cycle driven by a known cycle in the magnetic activity of the sun. Written history tells us the Medieval Warming, a mild-weather period from the 11th to 13th centuries, with temperatures 1 to 3 degrees F. warmer than today. It was followed by the Little Ice Age, with temperatures 2 to 4 degrees F. lower, harsh storms, encroaching glaciers, and crop-failure famines. History also records an earlier Roman warming, it too followed by a mini-ice age. http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...details&id=3026 If the UN's involved, I can't help but be wary....especially when it comes to "more money."

I sure would like to think it is still MY body even if I'm dead. There can be pressures or stigma for those who choose to opt out. Kinda like the looks a smoker gets when he lights up at a bus stop. Besides, even if this opens to more organs available....the chances for corruptions and money-making schemes is not lessened. Who gets the most healthy organs....the lifestyles they've had? Vegetarians only? Medical history? Genes of biological parents? Etc.., As a volunteer donor...I would like to be able to say who should get my organs. If I wish to give it to an impoverished person or any particular person(s), will it be honored? If I wish to save my organs in case of future use for any of my family...will that be honored? If I specify that my organs will go to Canadians only....and especially not to any mega-rich dictators who wish to prolong their evil rule....will it be honored or will money and politics talk? This becomes literally a "meat market." This opens another door that makes it easier to lead elsewhere...and you can be sure it will.

I sure would like to think it is still MY body even if I'm dead. There can be pressures or stigma for those who choose to opt out. Kinda like the looks a smoker gets when he lights up at a bus stop.