Moonlight Graham

My new friends Bruce and Gary say they take offense to that.

Metallica is my favorite band, and Hetfield's voice has gone downhill even since he recorded this but he does a really good job here, surprisingly. Tea Party is a great band, The Messenger is my favorite song of theirs, never knew it was a cover. Saw them play it live a couple years ago.

One of the best Canadian musicians ever. Amazing vocal chops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMSyyqyxsa0

So far, so fabulous!

Don't bother, just save yourself the trouble and ignore him.

The OP question is an age-old question of philosophy. I agree with Argus. Morality is culturally relative, and even different from person to person. What was considered moral even 100 years ago in the Canada/the West is considered morally reprehensible to us now, and in another 100 years our current society will be considered a moral abomination. So it goes. For one culture to call another immoral and demanding them to change, like the West calling an African culture or Arab culture savage, is cultural imperialism. Morality is like a social contract within a society. As long as the vast majority agree to it (there will always be outliers, even in our society), that is the defined morality of that society. That said, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a Western, imperial document. It was apparently written with "consultation" with different global societies, like Africa and Asian delegates, but it's clearly a western document of liberal democratic human rights, not "universal" as claimed.

I highly, highly doubt the doctors say the offenders are "cured". A mental illness serious enough to cause someone to commit murder very rarely would ever be "cured", it can be treated and controlled though.

btw they would have to have a probation program for him for the rest of his life if set free. He would have to consistently go to therapy, maybe have random blood/urine tests showing he's taking his meds etc.

I think 3 years is much too soon to be released. But he had mental illness. A person with mental illness untreated can be COMPLETELY different when properly diagnosed and under proper treatment. He has a right to show that he can consistently be mentally stable and healthy under proper treatment and thus set free eventually. 3 years may be too soon given the murders, but maybe 5 years or something like that pending the medical professionals' assessment. I don't think it should be an automatic life lockup for something out of his control that can be fixed, that's not justice IMO.

I'm going to try to go completely and ridiculously gay over the next week and see if I can change. I'll let you all know the results.

You're stating claims/opinions too, yet there's zero reference to scientific studies in your post either. I think we're all just too lazy to look them up. At least I am.

I doubt FOX and MSNBC and Sun News really believe they're being objective. I agree. At least you finally admit that some sources editorialize/report the facts more than others and are therefore more objective.

From Wikipedia: This is to show why the Bible shouldn't be taken as "the word of God" by fundamentalists. And if fundamentalists like betsy reject homosexuality and gay marriage based on their reading of the Bible, then they should also have no problem whatsosever with the practice of slavery either. Slavery in the US and elsewhere was justified based on Christian grounds, partly from references found in the Bible. Now, homosexuality and gay marriage is rejected by many Christians based on Biblical interpretations. Same with birth control. Christian fundamentalists have been on the wrong side of history numerous times. Time for them to get an education on the history of the Bible, how it was written and who exactly wrote it.

Sounds like a project to give the new leader a power-boner. Maybe he should spend the money on feeding his people. What a crappy communist country.

I'm not saying any news source is free of bias. I agree it's important to understand them. But there's a clear difference in being, or at least trying to be, objective and being subjective. An editorial piece is more subjective than your average news story. It has a clear slant, and more of a bias. My point is that while all news sources aren't free from bias, some are more subjective than others on the whole. Some editorialize or pick and choose more than others. Some try to be more objective than others in reporting the news.

Well you have a point. But on the other hand, who is more biased: MSNBC and FOX, or the Associated Press? All will have some kind of bias. but 2 of those have an agenda that goes beyond just "reporting the facts". When I read the Associated Press I know there is some kind of bias inherent in the reporting, but I'm confident that it isn't going through as much of a spin filter and leaving out or leaving in info because of a partisan agenda like the others. I trust the AP more in terms of accuracy.

Rational thinking LOL. Psychologists don't say this. They say it's either genetic and/or environmental factors that determine a person's sexual preference. Because you can't change your sexual preferences. It's a subconsious feeling, not a conscious choice. You can act gay or straight or whatever you want, but repressing your feelings and changing your behaviours to suit your perceived sexual identity will never change your subconsious feelings. Who's the one on here dishing out self-serving B.S.? Your beliefs are really dangerous. Completely illogical, with little basis in science. I hope you don't have a child who is gay because the anguish they would feel based on their upbringing would be tremendous. It's beliefs like yours that cause mental illness in gay people, drive them to commit suicide, and make it hard for them to come out and be themselves in a world that accepts them. I have no patience for people with your mindset. I have no patience for religious extemists like yourself at all.

A positive that can be said of labour unions in the private sector is that the owners/capitalists, who make profits by using the labour of their employees, can be essentially coerced through collective bargaining to share more of the profits from company with its employees. Now, some public sector employees work for crown corporations and can help generate a profit (in theory) for the government, ie: the LCBO. Maybe crown corporation employees are more deserving of union rights because they can generate profit, I'm not sure. However, other public sector employees (those who work in the bureaucracy or Parliament) don't work to generate profits. Other public sector employees work for welfare services, such as teachers or social workers, and these people obviously aren't in the business of profit. They are paid by the taxpayer to provide social services for the benefit of people within society. So should public sector employees who work for non-profit entities like school boards, child welfare agencies, different bureaucratic departments in Ottawa etc. be able to form unions and have the right to strike etc.? Should they be able to hold the taxpayer essentially hostage for wages/benefits in comparison to private employer who is clearly reaping a substantial monetary (as opposed to social) reward for their labour? Should the government and their budgets, ie: McGuinty vs the teachers, be able to dictate the pay/benefits of these public employees without having to deal with union bargaining tactics?

I think there should be professional therapy avilable for Christian fundamentalists in order to help them cure their irrational thoughts.

This is a fair enough point. Then again, is this therapy recognized as being effective or helpful at all by the majority of psychologists/psychiatrists? IMO this is just repressing one's natural desires, not "curing" anything. How "healthy" can this be? This said, why should health professionals be allowed to practice such unhealthy techniques.

Yes I, and everyone else, can clearly see your strong bias from a mile away. I never had any comment on the Balfour Declaration in my post, just that the Declaration is historically significant and should be included in any summary of the conflict. So where where exactly do you see the " bias in [my] stance on the issue"? You've clearly gone completely bananas on me, plus you're biased beyond any fair discussion on this issue so I'm not going to respond to your comments in this thread anymore. You're wasting my time.

Agreed. ALL news media has bias, but that bias is on a continuum from perfectly objective on one end (impossible to achieve) and 100% subjective propaganda machine on the other. Fox is closer to the subjective extreme than any other msm US news media outlet claiming to be "objective" (fair and ballanced!)

enjoy! CLICK "youtube" button to watch, embedding is disabled:

True point. Do you remember the presidency of Bush Jr.? Obama is number 1 by a mile, it's not even close. He has checks on power, especially domestic policy (the president can't even introduce a bill to congress), but he has much more power in the foreign policy realm. He needs congressional approval to go to declare war, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Other_undeclared_wars Also, when was the last time a President wanted military action that was rejected by Congress? Many other areas don't have to be approved by Congress. Obama could nuke South Korea this very minute based on some false flag perceived nuclear threat. A President has many means at his disposal to get what he wants in foreign policy (even if needing congressional approval), some shadier than others. The President also has ridiculous international influence in so many areas.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby equals: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/