Moonlight Graham

Haha why?

I haven't read a post on here in a long time containing more ridiculous nonsense based on such a severe lack of knowledge of the subjects mentioned. It also morally offends me, but morality is subjective. It would take me a week to properly respond to this post so I won't even bother.

Isn't it the official opposition's job to challenge what the government does that they think is wrong, not just to challenge any and everything they do? I guess that's their job in theory haha, it seems they challenger them on anything that could be considered to undermine their credibility and power.

I agree. I think a lot of political issues are style over substance. It's really hard to make a judgment on whether this was the right call for the Harper gov or not. I mean, the Cons say one thing and the NDP say the opposite is true. In order to get any clear sense of whether this was the right call or not, one would have to really look into this initiative and see what it's goal is, how it works, how the money is funded and distributed, and how the whole thing functions with then a sort of cost-benefit analysis.

You are right, I should qualified my statement here with a "my guess is" or something. Yes I pulled the # straight from my ass.

Thanks China!...for giving us two healthy pandas that we denied life in their natural environment so that we can enslave them for our own observation and amusement. Rant: zoos should not be allowed other than for rehabilitation and possibly scientific purposes.

Keep in mind, the world is supporting 7 billion people right now (and now without many problems), but the majority of this 7 billion lives in quite poor conditions in areas that are not fully (if at all) industrialized, with a big portion of these still living subsistent agricultural lives. If say at least 80% of countries in the world were as economically developed/industrialized as Canada/Western Europe etc., it's very uncertain (in fact, I highly doubt) whether the earth's natural resources and the overall environment would be able to support such a developed population, or if it would even be possible to begin with (especially given today's technology). Consumption, pollution, human waste, fossil fuel use etc. would rise significantly, & my guess is most of these areas would more than double. In my view, for the vast majority of the global population to live in conditions of high economic and overall human development in our current age, the global population should ideally be cut in half at least.

I found this very interesting from the OP article:

sustainable adj 1. (Economics) capable of being sustained 2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications /Environmental Science) (of economic development, energy sources, etc.) capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage sustainable development 3. (Economics) (of economic growth) non-inflationary - Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment: (sustainable agriculture). - a: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged I'll admit I don't have a science journal off hand to back up my claim, and again I'm not talking about global warming, but my best guess is that if humans keep using fossil fuels indefinitely (let's say several centuries) at anything near current levels, the dirt/soot and other toxins (not even talking about greenhouse gases) would accumulate to a level that would make it very difficult for humans and other animals to breath properly (with some external apparatus/gas mask that is). Air quality already gets pretty gross during hot summer days in and around cities.

I don't understand this. For instance, fossil fuels and certain other resources used in economic activity are unsustainable since we use them at a higher rate than they are replaced (whether by us or via natural processes). Our use of fossil fuels also creates pollutants (let's ignore the carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas debate entirely and just say fuel pollutant byproducts like soot and carbon monoxide etc.), and if we continue to use these fuels at the rate we do we will continue to destroy the environment more and more until much of the human-habitable earth and other ecosystems are massively damaged or possibly even uninhabitable by humans and many other organisms. Therefore, fossil fuel use is an example of economic activity that's unsustainable in its current usage and historical usage.

No, economic growth is important to overall wellbeing, though it certainly isn't the only factor (which, yes, sometimes it is given too much or even total weight). But you are right, many policies should also look at overall wellbeing, which many do anyways. ie: When a country brings in a social program, they aren't just thinking about GDP, in fact many times they are thinking of mostly factors beyond GDP. On the grand scheme, I think factors other than economic should be looked at much more by both governments and individuals in their personal lives when trying to attain more happiness and wellbeing. See your quote from the OP: This person is speaking about economic progress, which GDP is a good measure (though not a totality of economic progress, since it depends on your definition of economic progress...ie: income equality may factor into economic progress as well for many people)

Let's have a "Don't Bathe for a Week" campaign.

True enough. Western Europeans won the technological race to colonize most of the world, so I guess they also won the race to subject their racial, cultural, and economic superiority on most everyone else throughout the world. I have little doubt it would be similar if any other cultural/racial groups won the race.

There's a big difference between species becoming extinct through natural processes like natural selection, and them becoming extinct through destructive human behaviour like ie: pollution. We are a part of the earth's environment, we cannot live without it despite all of our technological achievements, so it would make sense to preserve that which we need to survive. It's also pretty to look at haha.

I agree that for some jobs an accent can make a difference. But I know this employer well in my personal life, they are racist against Muslims/Arabs (I'd guess mostly because they've never really known any personally), they don't like them for xenophobic reasons, they don't "trust" Arabs. It's plain racism. This attitude certainly exist among other employers. I'm sure even many people on this board would hire a white person over an Arab Muslim (even one without an accent) if resumes and abilities were 100% equal.

Electricity and other human technology has been very good for humans, but pretty much horrid for many other lora and fauna organisms and the overall health of the planet. We can do a lot better to live in a more sustainable balance with the earth.

That's pretty funny.

I think you make some good points but this is an overly-simplistic analysis. I agree in your comparison of rich whites vs poor whites or poor blacks/rich blacks. The personal family culture, community culture etc. can differ greatly even within races, and I know lazy yahoo white-trash idiots who live on my street along with really hard-working, smart, responsible families who have more economic success. However, if you take two groups of people with a similar culture of work ethic, one black and white white, there's no denying that whites will have an advantage based on systemic hierarchal structures and attitudes, including the "ol' white men's club" or whatnot, similar to how women can face a glass-ceiling while trying to rise in the ranks within ie: a corporation or political party. Many employers will still hire a white person or a Muslim person who has an Arabic accent even if their resumes are equal, this is undeniable, I personally know white employers who have admitted this to me. I think both culture AND race or some of factors that go into economic success. Whites do have undeniable systemic privileges, but also think making kids wear wristband is a bit ridiculous. Discussing it in the classroom, among other things, is fine IMO.

Thank you.

Wow hahaha I wouldn't be surprised at all that he said that. Do you have a link or source for that. So very, very true. I also think it's far more telling/useful to look at politicians previous voting record as MP, or say in Senate/House of Reps, when they are running for PM/party leader/President etc. or running for re-election instead of listening to what they during a campaign (or, well, ever)

Wow thanks for the link. I love old-school Springsteen. I've listened to a few of his albums (and concerts) from the last 10-15 years or so and they just don't compare to the 70's and 80's. I agree, a lot of the earlier stuff has more piano in it, I liked.

Yes exactly. Ya I've been getting into them more lately. Here's another classic rock-type band people say have sort of Zeppelin sound. I really like the guitarist when he does lead work like on the brief solo.

Go watch "The Fog of War" with Robert McNamara, and the deleted scenes. I'm pretty sure nuking S.Korea and Japan is a major threat also, and a very real threat that may be do-able right now. Yes, but why do we want to attack Iran? You want to start preventative wars (not even preemptive wars) based on the imaginary possibility we might need to attack them in the future. You'd rather have guaranteed war rather than a small chance of war. That's insane. I'm sure you supported the Iraq invasion, and if you were old enough, the Vietnam War as well. Should we have attacked China, Pakistan, and the USSR when they got their nukes as well?

AUX TV - does anyone else watch this Canadian music channel? It's on channel 107 on Rogers Digital Cable where I live. The link I posted will tell you where to find it on whatever cable provider you have. AUX TV is one of the best thing to happen to Canadian music in many years, since it shows a lot of independent, alternative, and other acts (both live performances and music videos) from many music genres that are never played on the pop-music sellout crapfests that has become MuchMusic and MTV. Just watched these 2 cool songs/bands on AUX TV: These guys are like Led Zeppelin 2013 (lead singer may have a Robert Plant complex LOL): A mix between Sheepdogs/Black Keys classic hard-rock with a bit of doom/sludge metal mixed in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuRKRFjm-HA&list=PLED0BFD07E59A02FF&index=131

The way the Iraq War was sold and how it played out is a different issue than IF the removal of Saddam Hussein was beneficial overall to western, middle-eastern, and global security (and that of Iraqis themselves). I'm willing to at least hear and debate the argument that given the horrific sanctions that kept Saddam's regime contained, eventually it may have been necessary to remove him from power, be it UN-sponsored invasion or Clinton-style clandestine operations (which would have been much harder if not impossible, since with Saddam gone his regime, led by his sons, would still have been intact). If the sanctions were kept for years/decades following 2003, possibly hundreds of thousands more of lives could have been lost. If the sanctions were removed or weakened, Saddam could have restarted his WMD/nuclear programs. Kind of screwed either way. What isn't arguable is that the Bush admin did it the wrong way, they lied their way into a war without an truthful debate on the matter with the US people and internatational government leaders and their constituents. The Bush admin lied to me, you, and every government in the world so they could start their BS war. They also conducted the war in a horribly incompetnant fashion, not to mention breaking international law (including torture: Abu Ghraib etc.). Key members of both the Hussein regime and the Bush admin all deserve a toasty place in hell.