Slavik44

Most members of this forum, have posted their opinions in a thread titled "Child Discipline", the thread was originally started by Betsy, and it was in the moral and religous issues section, a quick search could probabley find it. You could probabley read through that to get an understanding of most members opinions and after that give your own, it may be easier to renew a debate from that thread then simply starting another one.

Nostalgia has always been a powerfull drug, its what makes an 1986 oldsmobile like new. I suppose as people get older they look back on the glory days. And when your seventy years old and your trip to walmart is the highlight of your day the past really is buatifull. It is why people can actually end up getting re-married to someone they divorce. After some time you forget certain bad aspects and focus on the joy you expirenced. You see things through rose coloured glasses. I am not saying this applies to everyone, as people switch affiliations to both left and right and this happens at different stages and times in life. Personally for me I would say what has caused me to shift directions is the principle of Liberty. Liberty being defined under the Declaration of the Rights of Man as such that it consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." However I will admit I have struggled in bringing such a principle into matters of economic importance. I find it much harder to determine where to draw the line that seperates protecting economic freedoms and impeding those freedoms. I can be sympathetic to the goals of the left, but disapointed with their waste, I can be sympathetic to the right when they cut the fat, but disappointed when they cut the meat as well. I find it even harder to find a political party that is in line with both my social values and my Economic values. But ultimately I try to use Liberty and Compassion as guiding principles and critical review of my beliefs based on those two principles is what brings about such change in my political leanings.

Well I am 19, so I think I remember being a teen, fairly well myself. I think you can give kids information and generally they will actually make wise decisions, more so then they are given credit for, that being said what they decide may not always be in line with what their parents want, I think that is a fact of life parents need to accept. As well I belive the majority of people who would be in favour of these so called "virginity pledges" are the same people who are probabley agaisnt masturbation, so I doubt that is an acceptable answer to people who strongly promote virginity pledges. I would also not suggest getting a child to work our for three hours straight, after about 45 minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes most benifiets of weightlifting wear off. It is a bit like being in the sun, it is good for a little while but after too long you get sun burnt. Seeing as how childrne are still growing the possible damages to development coudl be exponential. You have also said that you belive sex belongs within marrige, what if however your child concludes differntly given the information they have been provided? Is this a tragedy? Or is it a fact of life? And What is it that you can really do to stop them, besides promotign some guilt inducing pledge that may caus esoem teens to associate sex/sexuality with guilt. Many posts seem to be based on the idea that sex amongst young teens is rampant, but even in the so called hyper sexed world we live in the evidence is clear, in 1995 about 40% of kids aged 15-17 had sex, while it is now down to about 30%, I belive those results are not due to "virginity pledges" instead the fact that despite what you have said, there is an association of consequences with actions. STD's and pregnancies, so not only are young teens being smarter in regards to sexual behavoir, but they are choossing to have sex less often. If this is somethign you are worried about you msut recognize the key is probabley not in the moral arguement but in being educational and understanding not morrally superioir and condescending.

I just don't see this happening, Canada and America have always had an interesting relationship, even when we get in public spats we our still on each others side behind the scenes, if Canada has demonstrated one thing in our history it is that we like the ability to choose, the fact that there is and will always be only one option is irrelavant, we enjoy having the illusion. To some extent there is no reason to mess with something that works so well. Despite what people say our relationship is probabley better as two countries inhabiting one continient then as one country in one continient. Despite the odd bump in the road our relationship is great, even when it is bad. Really unification would improve very few things in our relationship but it most certainyl would create a number of headaches, found in sepratism, Canadian nationalism, billingualism, public health care, and the creation of the democartic dynasty (Canada, California, New York). I think this is a classic cass of a relationship being better in its current state. I think we enjoy each others company and although tensions get inflamed they always die down, but I belive space allows us to do that, the space being seperate governments. I think when we eliminate the space we may be creating a situation for a long un-ending train of abuses and usurpations, to stack up to the breaking point. So why mess with a good thing? If it ain't broke there is absolutely no reason to fix it until it is.

Seems to me both Bush's were into Skull and Bones. And how many Presidents have been Freemasons? I think however, if you sent me to Yale, and every year I got to pick some of the best, brightest, most well connected students in Yale I would probabley compile an organization of world leaders as well, not because I control the world but because when I start with Carbon and a shitload of pressure and heat given time I will create a diamond.

I have absolutely no problem with addicts getting fed and sheltered, what I do have a problem with is addicts getting fed and sheltered for free, what I mean by free is no requirements. The fact is addictiosn can be overcome, and any disability pay for addicts shoud come with atleast one requirement, the person must provide proof that they have and are continuing to seek help for thier addiction. A person in a wheel chair, or with a mental handicap cannot go and become rehabilititated, no matter how much they want to, no matter how much they try they will always be disabled (barring scientific break throughs). As long as the possibility exists that should be the requirement. It is often said that before a person can become rehabilitated, they must want to become rehabilitated, and I wonder if no strings attached monthly cheques may negate the persons willingness to become rehabilitated. This policy niether rehabilitates nor creates productive members of society, instead this policy ultimately fails both society and the individual. Because this policy doens't take alcoholics who don't work and make alcoholics who work, and it doens't take Alcoholics and make non-alcoholics, instead it may help to ensure alcoholics stay alcholics.

I wouldn't describe over thirty activists as fairsized, its a bit like saying the Canadian armed forces has a huge personnel surplus. I also do not belive that the average NDP member or Jack layton, is stupid enough to ratify such things. If they are, the response will be simple and overwhelming, myself and hundreds of thousands of other Canadians will ask Jack Layton for the votes we loaned him to be returned with interest.

I think when we use the term forced, we assume the opt out process is bound to be complicated. I don't belive it has to be. To start I would ensure that the system is phased in over two years, give people two years to opt out, after the two years are up, those who have not chosen to opt out are opted in. Opting out doesn't have to be complicated, why not proof of I.D and checking a little box that says, I like my organs I want to keep them after I am dead. This could be done when people visit a family doctor, when people plan ahead andmake funeral arrangements, when people go to get their drivers license, or renew their drivers license, when you fill out a will. You could literaly give people the oppurtunity to opt out every time they are in a situation where proof of I.D is required..."I notice you are buying Alcohol your kidney is probabley useless do you want to opt out of the organ donation program?"

Well I pretty well have read the Bible completely, and after reading it yes I belive you can pinpoint the errors fairly easily. I do belive that if your beliefs need to be protected from critical review then they are probabley not worth having in the first place. Why is it that they are so fragile so that a fictional book/movie can shatter them. The fact is most people who belive the bible probabley haven't read the book anymore then those who don't belive the bible. I guess the answer is simplicity, if you don't question your beliefs then I suppose they can remain solid, it is then one less thign to worry about. That being said when you cannot avoid your beliefs being called into question those that have not critically reviewed their beliefs find that they are not wisemen who built their house on a foundation of rock, instead they resemble the foolish man who built his house on the sand. Due to this their beliefs collapse and for good reason, they were not sturdy in the first place. Others will put a missile defense shield around their beliefs plug their ears and make alot of noise so they can continue to live in ignorance, because Ignorance is bliss. So if this movie causes people to loose faith, I do not belive it is the fault of the movie, it is the fault of the faith.

I belive the French would surrender to the Mexicans and ask if they can retain the midwest as a collabarative regime to be governed by themselves. But what the French would do is un-important. What would I do, well I sat down and asked myself if I would be offended if Oh Canada was sung in Chinese, and I would not. But that being said I am not too much more important then the French, I am not an American, I am not the President, and I do not sing the American national anthem all that often. While I may disagree with the wishes of the President, unless concrete evidence can be given that the wishes of the American people are different from that of their president, I may still disagree with it, but I do belive his request should be respected, especially seeing as how in this case the singing of the anthem will be used for commercial gain.

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.

I would agree, for most of us, we don't really need our bodies once we are dead, so why do we need are organs? I am sure some people have religous/personal reasons for not wantign to donate organs and in that case they can opt out. So yeah I would have no problem with the Government switching over the system.

Fifty thousand years ago, Modern Humans left Africa and started to travel around the world, since this time both humans and the earth have never been the same. 50,000 years ago, we didn't have much of a life, we ate, we slept we walked, maybe if we we had a bit of liesure time we drew a picture on the wall of a cave. 40,000 years later, just ten thousand years ago things improve greatly, humans left behind their simple lifestyle in the dog eat dog world, when they developed agriculture. Now cities didn't grow over night and for the most part they drifted from camp site to camp site, where in their spare time they told myths, perhpas over a campfire. Most of us have heard myths, most of us have told myths, perhaps we have even done so over a fire while camping. A myth of course is a story, dealing with supernatural beeings, ancestors or heroes and serves as a fundemental world view. What we must ask ourselves at this point, is by retelling these myths, by re-enforcing a fundemental world view were people being controlled and loosing their ability to think critically? I mean they told myths, these myths re-enforced a fundemental view of the world, and probabley by a young age every little child coud remember these myths. If not then how about a couple thousand years later. When settlements started popping up. What happened at these settlements? Well not only were myths told, but based on these myth Gods were seen to be involved in every aspect of Human life, based on these myths humanity knew that there crops succeeded or failed based solely on the will of the Gods. In fact because of these informative myths many societies were willing to make human sacrifices to please the Gods of the myths in order to ensure a succesfull crop. Now if we zoom ahead through time, we start to see the rise of different civilizations. In Egypt a grand civilization emerges, with pharoh's man so powerfull they could order people to spend their lives buildign a pyrmaid for them, not just a few but thousands of people to do so. This of course was made possible by the popularly accepted view of the world, myths. But not just myths but now the egyptians had religion, they had gods, they had the God of the sun. Of course based on myths and Religion Egyptian Kings legitimized themselves, as descendants of the Gods, who deserved so much more then just mere common people. Obvoiusly I don't have 10 thousand years to tell you this story so we are goign to fastforward a bit, but while I press the fast forward button, we need to ask ourselves aq important question. Were people in egpyt being controlled by the elites? Were Myths and many popular liesure activities being used to re-inforce the power of the Egyptian rulers? Now we have arrived at a time less then a thousand years ago, and we will focus on europe. Where we have Kings, aristocrats, and societies elites. All in the place they are in because God granted them this, because it was God's divine will that Kings were kings and that these kings children also became kings or dukes or lords, or whatever Gods will was that they become. Not to long after people began disagreeing on what exactly Gods will was, many of these people took a trip acrossed an ocean and started to build their own societies, societies that God would approove of. They ran into some troubles here and there. We cannot forget the natives, where it was gods will that they would be destroyed and they soon became sick and died. To help build up this society and improve its stregnth a number of immigrants relied on slaves, these were sub humans taken from Africa, scorned by god, they had little intelligence, and no ability to feel Human emotions, the perfect, well slaves. These people also ran into oher problems when whitches were found in salem so off the town went to round up every old lady, with scragly gray hair and a black cap. Now before we fast forward we could ask the same question, how many people were put to death, based on myths, based on supersition, based on a commonly accpeted world view. Now we fast forward to the cold war, and a speech made by a man named Joseph Mccarthy, who had in his possesion a list of names, that the state department would do nothing about, these men were comunists. So off we went to round up and ruin the lives of "the communists". Now we fast forward to this thread. Where people are bitching and complaining about the loss of individuality, a loss that has resulted in people being controlled by game shows, and telivision. they have lost their ability to think critically, and they have lost their ability to think as an individual. But if we don;t have it, did we ever have it. Is the survivor of today worse then the human sacrifice of yesterday. Is the American Idol of today any worse then the slavery of Yesterday. Is the blind faith of today, any worse then the Kings that descended from and ruled with Gods will? If you say yes to this, then I can say only that perhaps the reason you find critical thinking lacking in todays world is because you posses no such ability yourself.

Yeah I think I know who you are talking about....I don't remember a whole lot about him, he only really spent one year playing for the Giants, apparently he has played for the University of Calgary these past two years.... http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdispla...p3?pid=00031051

I think we are in agreement here, unfortunately I don't really seee these Ideas being implemented in a manner I would like, and I worry that by leaving them out we risk making the situation worse.

So what your saying then is you would rather have the break and the gas pedal slamed to the floor, rather then decreasing the force beign applied to the break and gas pedal? There are a number of ways to slow down. It is interesting of course that you chose the most deadly method. It is not as though this is an epic battle between Good and Evil. Decreasing both would probabley be in our best interests. Okay well first off, I belvi eit is important to recognize there are a number of problems, I belvie right now we are disscussing one of these supposed problems, just because we are discussing Problem A doesn;t mean that we do not also acknowledge problem B through Z. I think the scarey thign for Canada is that for us Environmental Degradation is like a feel good industry. We sit around and talk about what needs to be done, then we sit around and talka bout hwo we can achieve it, and then we praise ourselves for talking, and then we sit on our ass and take no action. The fact is we really are not doing anything to truly solve the environmental problems facing us. Myself personally I have never been 100% sold on the Kyoto Protocol and I still am not sold on it. In fact I probabley would highlight and hold the same concerns you do. I originally was drawn into posting in this thread not actually to defend the Kyoto Protocol but to help answer a question you had. Why has the earths tempature been static if we are expirencing Global Warming? That is what I tried to provide a possible solution to. You asked why you asked how, what I tried to do was explain that.

Have you ever driven your car and had your foot on the gas and the break at the same time? You see that is to different and opposite forces working simultanoiusly. You ahve the gas pedal which makes the car go faster and the break which slows the car down. Both of these two forces affect the speed the car is traveling. Even though these two forces are different the existence of one force does not exclude the simultanous existance of another opposite force. Global warming can be seen as the gas pedal force on world temperatures, and Global dimming can be seen as the break force on global temperatures. Both are happening at the same time, both are exerting there power on the earths temperature. Even if the Earths temperature stays the same both forces can be at work, they can both exist, but they would at the time balancing each other out. If the earth is cooling the forces of global warming can still be happening, only that they are being out weighed by the force of Global dimming. Your porblem lies int eh fact that you are trying to view Global warming and Global dimming as the speed of the car rather then two forces that affect the speed of the car. Global Warming is used to describe the end result of what the forces behind it cause, they cause warming, if unrestrained, in other words what these forces gravitate towards creating. I belive that is one of the basic priniples behind global dimming, that it has been a force masking the full affect of Global Warming. Like when you have your foot on the break only a bit and your foot on the gas alot, if you take your foot off the break, your car will accelerate swiftly. In the end if you have critisicms of Global warming or Global diming that is perfectly legitimate, but I think in this case you were taking a needless shot on a groundless basis.

The booes are quite deserved if you think about the number of Canadian fans that have been booing US teams. The recent Junior hockey championships in Vancouver were perhaps the most egregious example. What the hell are you talking about? I was at a number of WJC games, never once did anyone boo a teams national anthem, not one time. There is a huge difference between booing an opposing team, which is to be expected in a sporting event, and booing a teams national anthem, which is un-acceptable. It is a sporting event, I have never been to one where opposing teams were not booed. That however does not and should not justify booing a national anthem It was un-acceptable when montreal fans did it and it is un-acceptable now. It is even more ridiculous that you suggest because I booed Jack Johnson that Canada deserved to have its national anthem booed. When the U.S National anthem was played I stood silently out of respect, when the Russian anthem was played I stood silently out of respect, when the Finish National anthem was played I stood silently out of respect. Even at a sporting event where competetive juices are flowing there needs to be some level of respect, and there is most certainly a line that is drawn when it comes to a national anthem. I only thank God that most people are not like you to be so cynical and inconsiderate as to suggest that a country deserves to have its national anthem booed. If you are going to boo a national anthem you better make damn well sure that it is over something more then a just a stupid sporting event. I swear the fact that the fans in San Jose booed our national anthem bothers me much less than the fact that there are people out there who are now trying to justify it.

It is often pathetic when people have to resort to booing the national anthem of another country, unless it is like Hitlers Germany then I can understand.... The other week or so I went down to Washington to watch the Vancouver Giants take on the Everret Silvertips. And in the end I was happy I went, especially considering we got the sweep. I also found the Everret fans to be friendly, although I had been previously been informed there were a bunch of drunken idiots. One person told me to take my jersey and shove it up my ass. However, thats only one out of thousands. I belive that most hockey fans and most people in both Canada and America are reasonable people and it is disturbing to see a couple thousand people runing it for a few hundred million people. ---------- With the Canucks being the best team not in the playoffs. I had to adopt a couple of teams, out west I grabbed Edmonton and in east I have gone with Buffalo. I certainly hope Edmonton can pull it together and beat San Jose. I think it would be nice to se a Canadian team win the cup and watching edmonton play is fairly entertaining, it would be nice to see them go the distance.

Hmm...what are the objections? An approach to dealing with crime should never have only one prong, unfortunately the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, and probabley every other party in Canada tends to have a one pronged approach. I have an awfull hard time eating with two chop sticks let alone one. When it comes to crime, there should be two goals, there needs to be punishment, but there also needs to be rehabilitation, so more crimes are not commited. Unfortunately the traditional Conservative solution of prisons and tougher sentences only fullfills one of those goals, but can also serve to compound one of the problems. The fact is if I find someone acting like a pig and throw him in a pig sty for 10 years, he is not going to come out acting more like a human, he is going to come out acting more like a pig, like an animal. My biggest concern with what the conservatives are doing is that it fails society when it comes to the re-integration of criminals. I personally belive that after a person gets out of prison we cannot expect them to be reformed, we cannot expect them to be scared of commiting crimes. The fact is there needs to be more preparation inside prisons for prisoners heading out into the real world. And the integration of said criminals needs to be slow. If someone commits a crime worthy of ten years in Prison I would rather see that at the end of those ten years this person is ready to come back into society, wether it means he spends all ten years in jail cell or not, then to see this person come out an even bigger criminal, with even more criminal contacts and criminal friends then he did before entering. Unfortunately the Conservaives are following the Liberals. They may be choosing the otherside of the coin, but it is still the same coin, made from the same material and it will be just as in-effective. The Liberals gave little punishment, and they also did little to re-integrate criminals into society, the Liberals followed their historical trend of doing a half assed job and failing. But we cannot simply do what the conservatives are doing and be satisfied with the belief that people are spending a lot of time in prison. There needs to be attention paid to the release of prisoners and the re-integration of prisoners. I would rather spend double the money and double the time, to ensure that there is lower recidivism, then merley doubling the time served after a person commits another offense. Another part of me also worries about making sentincing guidlines more stringent and uniform, each crime has its own special circumstances and context, and I do belive that when sentencing such things should be taken into consideration. If some rich punk kid trying to be cool robs a gas station with a gun, I belive it is different then if a poor kid from a starving family robs a gas station with a gun. Both broke the law, and yes the poor kid should have chosen to get a job. That being said I belive at the root there is a difference between someone who does it for adrenaline and impressing his friends and someone, although mislead, does it to fullfill a present physical need. The sentence should be different, the approach taken to each individuals criminal behavoir should be different, and the methods chosen to re-integrate such people into society should also be different.

The fact remains that we went into Afgahnistan to do a job, and that job is not over. I sincerely belive that if you are going to start something you should finish it, and do a good job at that. Because failing to do so can often come back to haunt you. Unfortunately in the situation in Afgahnistan Canadian troops will die, it is certainly dissapointing, but it is to be expected. I supported going into Afgahnistan when it happened and I will not be so hipocritical now as to turn around and suggest we pull out, simply because someone died and there is a problem somewhere else in the world. there will always be a problem somewhere else, there will always be a situation that demands attention. In fact it is likely there will always be a queue of problems in the world that need to be dealt with. Just look at your own life, on any given day there are a number of things you will need to complete, just because the lawn needs mowed, doesn't meen you should stop paying your bills or doing the dishes. That being said, attention can still be paid to Sudan and needs to be paid to sudan. Following World War Two, we made a pledge that we would not forget and not allow genocide to happen again, unfortunately it has never stopped. That being said we must find a way to deal with Afgahnistan and Sudan simultanously. We cannot just pull out of one area when a problem arises somewhere else. What kind of message does that send to the person commiting genocide? I will tell you what message that sends.... the world is full of nut jobs, if you wait a while Canada will go deal with some other nut job and let you get back to your murderous rampage. Any Policy Canada choses must be long-suffering founded on the basis of patience and consistency, anything else is just a band-aid on a severed arm and is entirely un-acceptable.

actually I belive russia has 16,000 nuclear war heads and the U.S only 10,000, they both have just under 6,000 active warheads and well over 1,000 active warheads float around the world in the possesion of other countries. I suppose I must ask in what sense? If I learned there was an active serial killer in my nieghborhood should I be worried. Even though the chances of him killing me are small, in fact incredibly small, in fact non-existant almost. It would be niave not to atleast think that there may be a problem. Yes, and considering the times and the knowledge available in 1945, If I was president during that time I most likely would have done the same. It may be easier to judge in 2005 but it wasn;t 2005 it was 1945. If you are going to judge actions in 1945, recognize first that it was 1945. The Bunker Busters used by the U.S were conventional, not nuclear. Hey I am no fan of U.S foriegn policy, but to be perfectly honest I would rather have America with 6,000 nukes then Iran with half a nuke. I am no real fan of Goerge Bush but I would rather have his hand on the big red button then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Okay well I don't kow how likely it would be for Iran to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. You have just assumed that it did happen, so I will play along. On that sense 7 million Israeli's just died, Israel, which also probabley had nukes, most likely launched a counter attack, before disappearing. So how does a nuclear war affect me. Well I am not a heartless bastard and 20 million people dieing in one day, might get to me. The shock from the events would undoubtedly affect the worlds economic stability and that would affect me as well. Hitler didn't really do anything to me personally, I wasn't alive then, doesn't mean I have to like the bastard. Again I am nt tclaiming that Iran will go on a nuclear strike you presented the situation. But to reply, and put it bluntly, it is stupidity at its best to think that a nuclear war would not affect you. The drunk guy holding a .22 scares me a hell of alot more then your average hunter holding a .308 True, but then again you just talked about a nuclear war as if it were a minor inconvience. I don't neccasarily belive we should hop on the next plane to go bomb Iran, but I do belive there is being prepared. I do belive there is merrit to looking into a situation, and trying to seek resolution before a problem manifests itself as a nuclear war, err... sorry minor inconvience. I can't say the U.S will handle this situation perfectly, and I cannot say I entirely trust the U.S in this situation. However, if the international community ignores the situation and does absolutely nothing the army of one will be more then happy to go in and do somethign about it. Perhaps it would be best if at present the international community takes notice of the situation and decides to act in a method of constraining co-operation with the United States of America. If we sit on our ass to long we loose such an ability. If you don't trust the U.S then the best policy is to ensure you keep them very close, not push them even further into their army of one mode.

I don't understand why people feel the need to complain about tests, some people are not good at writing tests, some people are not good at writing essays, some people are not good at delivering Oral Presentations, some people are to shy to participate in class, some people are to lazy to show up. We simply cannot go around accomidating all of these people and changing the make up of marks. So what if people are not good at tests or get nervous writing tests. Tests are one aspect of school, and an important one, like anything they are an acquired skill, I found I acquired that skill easily. But if it takes you a little work to acquire this skill, then put the effort in. It took me a long time to learn how to deliver good oral presentations, I was simply to bloody nervous, but now in university at the end of my presentations I often get compliments from other students and professors, Oral presentations have become may favourite way to be evaluated. In the end, everything in school is an acquired skill, some skills you have to work harder at to achieve then others, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them as a neccasary skill or call them stupid. Lets call it what it is, a part of school you should no more remove tests then text books. Come to think of it, reading certain text books is a very hard skill to acquire, maybe we could eliminate them, I will have to talk to my profs next semester, Maybe I could argue that after two years if you have a GPA higher than 3.9 you should not have to be evaluated on any information other then what is contained in lectures.

Okay well science is definitley not my forte but I wonder if the answer to your question rests in Global Dimming, where pollutants such as ash, sulfur dioxide etc... change the properties of clouds giving them the ability to reflect sunlight back into space and away from the earth. I belive this has been linked to cooler ocean tempatures in the Northern hemisphere and droughts in Northern Africa. Another part of global dimming gained more credence after the 9/11 attacks when planes were grounded in the U.S for a couple days, a rise in tempature was detected as well as a greater range in daily tempature. From there it may be possible to make the conclusion that as countries like China and India modernize, they are reallying more heavily on sources of energy that contribute to greater soot, ash, sulfur dioxide etc... in our atmosphere. This not only contributing to Cancers, Asthma, and other dangerous diseases but also an increase in the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight away from the earth.

Anyone want to give me 50 grand so I can run for leader of the Liberals? Oh well, I can't say I mind having so many declared candidates, this really is the first interesting leadership race in a while.