carepov

Oops, I’m sorry. I mis-understood your post, and probably your stance, and embarrassingly I must admit I was just making noise with nothing to back it up. I'd also take the government side IF I had to choose, but this is clearly not a choice between believing one side or the other. I also don’t get the need to either defend or attack him. If you don’t mind me asking… in your opinion, was the US treatment of Khadr... ...legal or illegal? ...moral or immoral? ...productive, counter-productive or insignificant towards the goal of winning The War on Terror?

Thanks for the topic, I am a big fan of Alan Greg and I agree with most of what he says with some significant exceptions. I fully agree that: “our government’s use of evidence and facts as the bases of policy is declining, and in their place, dogma, whim and political expediency are on the rise. And even more troubling …. Canadians seem to be buying it.” To me the “tough on crime” agenda is a perfect example of this. Hower the situation is not as dire as Gregg claims, and I do not agree that Harper has: “a deliberate attempt to obliterate certain activities that were previously viewed as a legitimate part of government decision-making – namely, using research, science and evidence as the basis to make policy decisions. It also amounted to an attempt to eliminate anyone who might use science, facts and evidence to challenge government policies.” I don’t see the change in the census as a big deal at all. IMO, we have ample data and do not require a mandatory form. Gregg claims that scrapping the long-gun registry was unreasonable because police chiefs were against it. I would argue that it is the police chiefs that are unreasonable. Cutting federal employees ~6% seems reasonable given the increases in the last few years Most of the other budget cuts seem reasonable to me Don’t forget that in today’s world it is much easier to gather and transmit information and research than 10-20 years ago. It seems reasonable that we can cut budgets and still gather ample data. A key point for me is: “if Canadians are essentially enlightened liberals, and are not prepared to offer wholesale buy-in to this vision of politics and the nation, why do we not hear a hue and cry in protest over the direction we are being led? “ Maybe I am being cynical, but I strongly disagree that Canadians are either enlightened or liberal. Just look around us at MLW! There is at least one area where the Harper government has out-reasoned all opponents – Politics. Harper has a great read (based on scientific data) on the values and opinions of the typical Canadian. His electoral success and popularity is proof and tells me that the government of Canada is a “reasonable” reflection of Canadian society. Yes as Gregg says, its time to gather the facts and fight back. IMO, the enemy is the apathetic and ignorant public. Maybe I am being idealistic, but if the public would start caring about and took reasonable positions on issues that matter, the data-driven political research machines of the political parties would pick-up on this and reasonable policies would be developed in response.

I have to marvel at how many people give the benefit of the doubt (i.e. blindly trust) the US/Canadian government. We could have just followed The Law and we would have avoided all this mess and been on step closer to winning the War on Terror than we are now. I do not support Khadr any more than you, and I support our side on the War on Terror as much as you. IMO, your kind of inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law is making it harder for us to win!

Yes – more revenues, more teams, more fans = business success. Struggling franchises have always been a problem. I can only guess at the reasons for increased speed/skill and overall quality 1. Training starting from a young age. Strength, conditioning, nutrition, skills training, hockey strategy, increased bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, discipline. 2. Better equipment 3. Better coaching at all levels I think that some rule changes improved the flow of the game and others were needed in order to adapt to the increased speed and size of the players. I’ve heard the claim before about a “watered down“ league. This is bad analysis. You cannot look at overall Canada/US population growth – what you need to look at are: -What is the total number of youngsters worldwide that are striving to play in the NHL? -How much effort are these youngsters putting into their training? -How effective is the training? IMO, all three factors are increasing and this is leading to increased speed/skill in the NHL. Good points/questions: OK let set the rules to 1980’s rules. -2012 Kings would without a doubt kick everyone’s ass. -Late 1990’s Devils would beat 1984-88 Oilers, mainly due to defensive play and trap. Don’t forget how much better the goalies are these days. -Average team of 2012 vs. 1984-88 Oilers? Debatable but I would say 2012 Team would win -2012 Leafs vs. 1984-88 Oilers? This would be a great game. What do you think? Yes most of this is personal opinion, however most of your personal opinions are wrong . IMO, the shootout takes nothing away from the game and just adds some excitement. http://www.cbc.ca/fi...-2009/the_code/ I just watched it again and it still pertinent after 3 years. I was torn on fighting before seeing it and now I am 100% certain – the NHL should take fighting out of the game. I would be interested in hearing about other people’s opinion about the show. Yes there are many things barbaric about hockey they should all be banned. Fighting is the only one that I can think of that isn’t. Legal body checks are not barbaric, just like legal tackles and blocks in football.

I refuse to judge/support/denounce Khadr or his family. The details you give above are not relevant to the main issue: The Law must be applied equally to everyone. The governments of Canada and the US broke The Law and this is unacceptable. Does this principle make sense to you?

Hey segnosaur, Similarly to dre, I have admired your logic on every post – until I came to this tread! Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. Like guyser I am not a cheerleader for Bettman, we are just saying that the claim that "Bettman ruined NHL hockey" is false. IMO the NHL is as successful as ever in terms of both business and the “quality” of the game. Important aspecs of “quality” to me means: individual speed, skill, creativity, emotion and also teamwork and “flow” of the game. I will argue that speed/skill is faster now than at anytime. Of course 99 was awesome but the average player now is more skilled than the average player from the 80’s. Here’s a thought, take the best Oiler’s team from 1980-1984 and put them in today’s league – where would they stand? Yes, Bettman and the league took too long to respond to clutch-and-grab and there is perhaps still too much of it. Still today’s is game is best ever. The league deserves credit for other improvements s to game “quality”: 1998-98 - Blue lines, moved two feet closer to center cutting the neutral zone from 58 to 54 feet. 1999-2000 – 4-on 4 OT 2000-2001 - two- referee system. 2005-06 - Blue line moved to 75 feet from end boards resulting in shortening of the neutral zone from 54 to 50 feet. Center line eliminated for 2 line passes and the tag up offside rule re-instated. Restrictions on the goaltender playing the puck outside a designated area are introduced. The team icing the puck is not allowed substitution for the next faceoff. A shootout is introduced if the game remains tied after the 5 minute overtime. Goaltenders equipment is downsized. Have you seen The Code (link above)? What do you think about it? My view is that bare-knuckle punches to the head are barbaric and as a fan I do want it in the NHL.

Yes good point. I would rather not discuss affirmative action at this time. In one word “no”. IMO, increasing equal opportunity means moving more towards a meritocracy where individual success is based primarily on how hard one works and less on how lucky you are to be born into the right family. I do not favour equal economic outcome. However grossly unequal outcomes are a sign of unequal opportunities. Yes, the programs I advocate would be free to the users and funded by government revenues. Government spending on health and education of would be a wise investment – “an ounce of prevention…” I don’t care much which government funds or administers the programs – whichever is most efficient, in Canada typically provincial or municipal for the examples I gave. Federal for native reserves I guess. Who cares what happened to parental responsibility or who’s to blame! We can all agree that: It is not an 8-year old child’s fault that they are hungry and do not have proper nutrition Hunger and poor nutrition are huge barriers to learning and development It’s not that expensive, and certainly cheaper than dealing with problems 10-20-50 years later. Let’s just do it! Well, if I understand you correctly you are in favour of providing these types of services for children at no cost to them or their parents. (I know nothing is free). I am pleasantly surprised that we are not that far apart on the issue of “equal opportunity” for children. I think that most of our disagreements were misunderstandings: I am not taking about “equal economic outcomes” I am not advocating national programs Like you I say” whatever works best”. With hungry kids not getting a proper education – something is not working at its best. Again I don’t care who is to blame, as a community/municipal/provincial/federal government let’s invest in their well-being and I am sure that our society will be better off.

Yes, you make a good point about Germany. Above all I admire Germany and other northern European countries for their efforts in conservation. They are leaders in solar and it looks like they are generating around 7% of their energy needs via solar. I sincerely hope that a breakthrough occurs in solar but I am sceptical due to its limitations. Renewables will not be enough to make up the loss of nuclear power: “At the moment, more than 20 new coal-fired power plants are being planned or already under construction in Germany; together, these plants would achieve a total output of 10 gigawatts and could, in terms of power supply, replace the nuclear power plants that are still operational.” http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf Yes it does look like Germany is reducing CO2, but… http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/15/germanys-per-kilowatt-hour-co2-emissions-jump-4-transformation-to-renewables-flops/ Also, does anyone know: if Germany imports solar panels from China, do the CO2 emissions from the manufacture of the panels count in Germany or in China? I have great respect for their country but I would assume that German politicians are quite capable of making counter-productive decisions in order to gain votes.

Like you, I am bothered by the ideologically minded people that call for carte-blanche deregulation. However, I am also bothered by ideologically minded people that call for excessive, useless and counter-productive regulation and government involvement and blindly oppose de-regulation, free trade, foreign investment and privatization. IMO, the language in your “basic law” is misleading/biased towards the latter. “Capitalism is amoral,” sure but to add balance: The current system of capitalism is amongst the most moral (or least immoral) systems in human history. I agree that regulations are needed to help protect safety and the environment, but I disagree that business concerns “often” trump other concerns. Businesses should be driven more by long-term profit and less by short-term profit. With a longer time horizon business concern will almost always align themselves with other concerns. Think about it: damaging the environment or ignoring public/workers’ safety will reduce profits in the long-term. Finally, some government regulations are useless or even counter-productive and exist for only political reasons. A small example or this is Canada’s ban of bisphenol-A in baby bottles.

dre, unlike any thread I've seen you post in- I strongly disagree with almost everything you say. First of all have injuries increased, I will need look into it? 1. There is no doubt that player size has increased. 2. I do not think anyone would argue that game is way faster now than ever before, do you agree? 3. The rewards of making the pros has escalated (salaries) and therefore the risks that players take to make it increase. It seems logical that if nothing was done injuries would increase due to the above three factors. About fighting, have you seen: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_code/ What do you think? This show tipped me over the edge and convinced me that the NHL should try to eliminate fighting. It is simply barbaric (I stil love a good fight though!).

Personally I am sick of all the stupidity and emotionalism surrounding this issue. Can't you see jbg and Peeves - most rational Canadians like Romeo Dallaire, myself and several others here at MLW are concerned about The Law. We have legal systems in Canada and internationally that were not followed. This is the main issue - governments broke The Law. We have a whole system designed to judge based on the facts and the Law. Who the hell are we to judge based on arbitrary emotions?

No way! First of all, the game is way faster now, just try watching a game from "the good ole days", soooo slow (less skill too). Second, players not only got faster but bigger so the NHL has to choose: rockem sockem or speed/skill. The human body can no longer take the force of impacts (F=ma). They definitely made the right choice, if they stuck to rockem sockem you would see way more injuries. Getting rid of the "clutch and grab" was also a major improvement in the game. Next the NHL should try to eliminate fighting.

I said nothing of affirmative action – strawman warning. Strawman alert! I specifically stated that I am not arguing for “equal outcome” and tried to explain the differences. Your post took a wrong turn right at the start and then just kept on going. Some of what you say is true but it is not at all what we were talking about. Here are some concrete examples of “equal opportunity” policies that I support or would advocate: -Free pre-natal education for pregnant women and partners with emphasis on nutrition and FAS and include free food stamps and bus tickets if necessary -Free primary medical care for pregnant women and all children -Free basic dental care for children -Hot breakfast and lunch programs for daycares and schools -More or less equal educational resources, for example schools in poor neighbourhoods should have decent teachers, computers, books, infrastructure, etc… -Free/subsidized sports and recreation programs for children including teens I cannot believe that anyone would be against such programs. These types of programs are win-win, they are at no-one’s expense as society as whole will benefit from the investments. Did you even think that your idealistic thinking is getting in the way of good judgement? That’s what it seems like to me.

wyly, How do you think France should meet its energy needs? How would you advise a country like India?

Well I guess we should all ignore the analysis and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. What do they know anyways?

dre is 100% correct about the a-bomb, thank you especially for the quotes of Hoover etc... There are good points on both sides. Re Nagasaki: really after three days? And did it really need to be dropped on such a populated city? Tokyo: I do not know enough to take a position, something about it just feels wrong to me, but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Dresden: I'm glad that you agree with me. Just to be clear, I am usually certain of the bad guys are: Nazis, Japs, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Taliban, Bin Laden... We don't usually mention their atrocities because there is nothing to discuss - they were evil. The enemy of evil is not necessarily good, for proof think of Stalin vs. Hitler. I suppose I used "good guys" meaning relatively good guys - again, think of Dresden. Or think of the idiots at Versailles that helped seed WW2. All the blood spilled in WWI and Korea for mere football field advancements what about Nam, who are the "good guys" there? Thinking of Iraq I cannot call the Bush administration good guys. The USA is the most virtuous superpower in the history of the world – but I wish they were even more virtuous.

I agree with bleeding heart and dre, and even partially with bud. IF Hiroshima saved tens of thousands of lives by ending the war more quickly - then yes it was a good decision. This is a debatable big IF. I cannot see a reason for Nagasaki three days later. I also cannot see the reason for fire-bombing Tokyo. I also cannot see the reason for Dresden. Don't get me wrong, the "good guys" won and I am glad we did. The other side was definitely worse. But I think we could have done better and I feel sorry for all the lives lost on both sides.

You are right the report was old, here are some newer sources saying the same thing, nuclear is generally safer than the alternatives: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf Considering your language and lack of data/sources, you seem to be looking at his issue rather emotionally. "Green energy" including hydro should be pursued but there are limits to their uses. In today's world, especially near large cities of the developing world where energy demand is growing fast, there are usually few options, nuclear, coal or maybe gas. Assuming a capacity factor of 30 percent, it would take more than 2,300 three MW wind turbines to potentially match the output of a 2,300 MW two-unit nuclear plant. If placed offshore, this many turbines would require three separate rows spanning the entire coast of South Carolina. Likewise, if we tried to match this same 2,300 MW plant with solar cells, given a 20 percent capacity factor and 6 acres of arrays to produce one MW of solar power, it would take up 69,000 acres, more than all of the land mass of Brooklyn, NY. In order to match the total U.S. generation from all 104 nuclear plants, one would need enough solar cells to cover the total land area of New Jersey, or enough wind farms to cover an area equal to West Virginia. http://www.nuclearinnovation.com/pdf/nuclear-techs-factsheet.pdf

Thanks for the link, but frankly it is one-sided and full of fear-mongering lies. It makes me wonder what its motives are. For example, the site claims that hormone treatment of dairy cows is dangerous, as if it were a well-established fact without balancing with opposing viewpoints, such as: "After careful review, the Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetics Association, and the National Institute of Health have independently confirmed that dairy products and meat from BST treated cows is safe for human consumption." https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf The Doctor on the View was: http://www.morrisonhealth.com/. His motives are clear. I am sceptical on the proclaimed dangers of wheat/gluten: "Urban lore suggests that more people are developing gluten sensitivity because today's wheat has higher gluten content than in decades past. But according to data from the Canadian Grain Commission, there was no upward trend in the protein content of Western Canadian wheat from 1927 to 2009. In fact, the amount of protein was higher in 1940 than it is today, and the 83-year mean was 13.6 per cent." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/the-gluten-debate-cutting-the-wheat-from-the-chaff/article572490/ Anyways, there are surely valid health concerns regarding our diet but there are plenty of groups spreading mis-information. I have decided save my trust for sources that are objective and scientific. For now, I have no concerns with farmed fish, GMOs, gluten, "factory" meat, dairy, "non-organic" produce, or even BPA in plastic bottles. I see no evidence of these things harming me. I will focus more on avoiding the proven dangers: smoking, lack of exercise, stress, lack of sleep, excessive alcohol, drugs, excessive fat/cholesterol, excessive salt, and excessive sugar. IMO, we spend too much time worrying about the possibly minuscule risks and not enough on the proven significant risks.

Ah, thank you. This makes more sense now, (in a legal sort of way). Putting aside the "legal" requirements by the government, are you satisfied with the actions of the Canadian government with respect to Khadr? How about the US government? If you have already explained your position in previous posts - I'm sorry, I have not come across them.

Please do not take it personally when I say that I don't believe you, I am a sceptical person by nature. I would have assumed that an increase in obesity/diabetes had more to do with poor diet (eating more fat and sugar) and lack of exercise. Also, life expectancy is increasing in Canada therefore I would assume that we are actually getting healthier. Can you provide some credible links for your claims?

Thanks, this helps but still: If Khadr's rights were being violated, does this not force the government to take action to protect his rights? I.e. doesn’t the Canadian government have the obligation to protect, or at least try to protect, the rights of Canadian citizens?

On this issue it looks like you and eyeball are talking past one another. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I (as an admitted legalese dunce) see it: As per the Supreme Court, the Government broke the Law by violating the rights of Khadr and MUST take corrective action. The course of action is up to the government to decide.

Hello wyly, First, I will second segnosaur’s main point: the report compared apples to apples, ie: the total number of deaths/injuries caused by the generation of energy per unit of energy produced. This data strongly supports the claim that nuclear energy is as safe as, or safer, than the alternatives. In addition, if you want to measure “displacement of people” then I fear that the flooding of lands for hydro would be much worse than nuclear or other alternatives. And finally, you do not seem to be considering damage from greenhouse gasses, this a huge advantage of nuclear over most alternatives.

Of the six claims you are making, the only one that I believe is: "some fish in some lakes are not healthy to eat". On what basis are you making the other five claims?