Electric Monk

From Wikipedia "Murphy has run for office in three Newfoundland provincial elections, in 1975 as a Tory, and in 1985 and 1987 as a Liberal. He lost all three times. He also worked in the 1980s as executive assistant to Clyde Wells." Obviously his experience has been dissimilar to yours.

Don't get me wrong, I tend to agree with things I hear on two of the three stations much more often than the third, (guess which two). I was just wondering what you folks think the meaning of the difference in ad focus is. As a side note, the ultra-conservative station brands itself as "The Truth", which I find interesting. I listen to the CBC to hear in-depth discussion on issues, while Air America and "The Truth", seem to both have their share of rabid partisans, although with "The Truth" in the lead in that category. P.S. To summarize the Coulter "snippet", she pulled the statement "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" out of her nether orifice and got called on it.

On the way to work I switch between the CBC, Air America, and an ultra-conservative Seattle station. I find that a large number of the ads on Air America try to tie in to the political beliefs of the listener as a way of selling product. I.E. "We are a progressive business that doesn't like what the bush administration is doing, so please buy our laptops." On the ultra-conservative station I don't hear any of this, just the standard spiel. I'm wondering what this is an indicator of? P.S. Drea, here's a snippet from the Coulter interview on the CBC.

This is about the US government removing checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power. You simply cannot blindly trust ANY government to always do the right thing, that's why the obstacles were put there in the first place, by those who had learned from their past experiences. I bet the founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

Why?

Did he really? Do you understand his experiment?? How does speciation not assume genetics? What exactly the effects of the antibiotics are doesn't matter in this experiment, they could turn them purple, or make them sing show tunes, but all that is necessary to demonstrate evolution is that the antibiotics no longer have the same effect on subsequent generations. I know you are making the point that scientists don't "start from scratch" every time they perform an experiment or propose a hypothesis, but a certain amount of pragmatism is necessary for any progress to be made. Science is one discipline where those who disprove fundamental previous knowledge are highly respected, (not always immediately), and questioning previously accepted knowledge is encouraged. The key difference between science and religion is that scientific knowledge CAN be disproven, religious faith is inherently without evidence with which to prove or disprove it, else it would not be faith. I think so too. I believe in species evolution but not to the degree of us coming from an amoeba. I will believe in magic before I believe we come from nothing -- I mean, the random sloshing around of mud. Look like more aesthetic reasons to me.

Considering the OP, if you read the quote above carefully it actually demonstrates your aesthetic reasons for choosing religion. You may have some logical reasons for choosing religion, but you have not expressed them here.

You are confusing speciation with evolution, speciation is a result of evolution, just as evolution is a result of mutation. (Edit:gc1765 beat me to it.)

My answer to the OP is that yes, I think that some people choose a religion for aesthetic reasons. My sister became a member of an Anglican church at least partly because of the beauty of the church, music, and ceremony she experiences there. I chose my lack of religion partly because I find the universe a much more beautiful and wonderful place without a god.

I have the feeling that for this thread to go anywhere productive, we are going to have to agree on a definition for the word "faith".

Gorgonzilla GoudaFellas Mozarella: Queen of the Galaxy I give up.

Did anyone notice that the defacement of the pope's picture turned him into a Pastafarian? Awesome!!

I've been trying to find a transcript online, but I've come up empty-handed so far. It smacks a bit too much of "Gore said he invented the internet!" for me to believe it though. I mean this speech given at the New York University School of Law 10 days before his UN address contains no mention of smoking.

This site has a pretty good explanation of the carbon cycle in a forest during various stages of growth. Apparently a mature forest no longer absorbs more carbon than it releases, but is in equilibrium. Once equilibrium is reached, there is no more net storage of carbon. If the forest regrows to the equilibrium point after a forest fire has gone through, there is no net loss in the amount of carbon stored. Incidentally, the more dead fuel accumulates on the forest floor between fires (more time between forest fires), the more damaging and severe the next fire will be, and more animals (humans too!) and larger trees will die. This has given rise to the modern policy of fire management, rather than the all-out "war on fire" of years past. I think this is the last post I'm going to make in this thread on forest fires, if we continue I think it should be in another thread.

Ok I'm going to take this one phrase at a time and paraphrase it for clarity, please correct any misunderstandings if you see any. 22% of Canadians believe that the American government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks so that they could launch a war, this means that they are dumb. Here is where the mind-reading begins again: Layton realizes that most of the people who vote NDP are dumb, and he needs more voters. The media reported that his last speech was mostly anti-Bush, and only dumb people believe that George Bush could be wrong. Layton is so dumb that he has no idea how we can meet the targets of the Kyoto Accord, even though he is going to base his platform on it. He is so dumb that he is against the war in Afghanistan because he thinks it is an American war, and he refuses to support the softwood lumber agreement because he thinks the Americans "on the other side of the table" are evil. Now why didn't you just save all of us some reading time and say "Stupid NDP"?

If you think about it a bit, you'll realise that forest fires have a zero net impact if the forest is allowed to regrow, it ends up sinking the same amount of carbon away in the long term as was released in the short term forest fire. It's a cyclical thing, neccesary for healthy plant growth.

I think the point that August1991 is making is that the relatively modern phenomenon of celebrity can come about through no direct intention of your own, but merely through happenstance and media exposure. I.E: the Paris Hilton sex tape. I mean who would know about her if the tape hadn't been seen by millions online, but now she even has her own album and appears on numerous television programs. (shudder)

SSM advocates wanted the legal right to marry their partner, the fact that some churches also endorse that right is an internal religious matter. They wanted the right to legally marry the person they love. Artificial insemination is also routinely used in farming livestock, is this also wrong? I'm going to be pragmatic and say that they use AI to get pregnant, and not try to infer motives. I think this is really the core of the debate. If I understand you correctly, homosexuals and lesbians have the same right to legally marry the person they love, as long as they don't marry the person they love? Is this accurate? I would argue that a truly moral society does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Agreed, which is why I used the term in quotes, except in the P.S. (doh). At this website I was waaay bottom left. Guess that makes me Communist/Anarchist or Left/Libertarian.

Though there may be some "Fundamentalist Liberals" as described by this blog, I think anyone who is not willing to constantly re-examine beliefs when presented with compelling arguments or new evidence falls into the same traps. Mostly it's just a nice soft strawman to knock around for while. P.S. LOCK UP YOUR VIRGINS!!! THE LIBERALS ARE COMING!!

Are you actually promoting the illusion male and male or female and female or homosexual and lesbian relationships are equally important concerning the importance pertaining to all levels of a functioning society as male and female heterosexual relationships. Are you that adamant concerning your twisted sexual analysis that there should be no special benefits available to heterosexual couples that form the cornerstone of society and are directly RESPONSIBLE for the CREATION of society itself? Ok, lets examine this logic, In terms of importance to society the one thing that same sex couples can't do is have children purely biologically. However, lesbian couples can take advantage of modern science in the form of artificial insemination (if they so choose). Homosexual couples cannot "naturally" concieve a child, however they can adopt (again if they choose to do so). But wait, heterosexual couples cannot always bear children naturally either, thus forcing them into the same situations as the aforementioned same-sex unions. It seems to me that if a same sex couple wants a child, if they are financially able and meet adoption or artificial insemination criteria they are fully able to raise a child and have a family. What about able-bodied heterosexual couples who choose to bear no children? Do we penalize them? Or do we attach the benefits to the children? (I honestly don't know this.) Do we penalize heterosexual couples who cannot have children? What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?

I agree, Homosexuals should have their own "different but equal" civil union ceremonies, their own "different but equal" washrooms, their own "different but equal" water fountains, their own "different but equal" back seats on busses. I mean really, who doesn't agree?

Does it make sense to try to negotiate without all opposing parties present? Can peace talks break down and fighting resume if all parties cannot reach agreement? Did anyone say "peace at any cost"?

As far as I saw, a respected member of a riding association on Vancouver Island put forward a resolution that Canadian soldiers were "acting like terrorists" in Afghanistan. Layton and others refused to state a position because "the party would not comment on any motion that has not been adopted by its membership." This has been taken as agreement? Why? Isn't the point of these resolutions that they are discussed and accepted/rejected/modified at party meetings? I can't read minds, can anyone else here?

Ok, forest fires, here goes. From what I know about forests, they consist of live plants, and also decaying plants. Decaying plants release methane gas, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Live ones are carbon sinks, intaking CO2 and releasing O2. When a forest fire comes through, it clears out a lot of decaying matter, and also a lot of living plant matter, releasing a large amount of trapped carbon and water vapour. This results in a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions. After the fire passes, new growth takes the place of the old growth, and starts to sink away carbon again. This may be at a faster rate than before due to the youth of the new plants, and their accelerated growth. (I have no idea how rapidly this offsets the releases due to fire, but logically it has to balance out over time.) I hope someone who knows more than I on this subject will correct me if I am mistaken.