Moonlight Graham

The war on climate change cannot be won without these jets! To launch a successful attack on climate, Canada needs this superior air fighting technology. CO2 WILL HAVE NOWHERE TO HIDE!! AHAHAAHAHA!!!!

Interesting point. If this was his true intent, he should have made the end credits run a few hours then, i'm still trying to figure out most of that film!

This is an amazing soundtrack few have ever heard of, from the documentary Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie (great doc by the way, amazing atomic test footage), score by William Stromberg, performed by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwVWXBhuVXI&tracker=False

List your favorite original film scores, and/or post your favorite individual score songs. There are so many to list. some of my favorite overall scores: Dances With Wolves Braveheart Rudy everything Star Wars E.T. Jurassic Park Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie That's just the tip. Here's a couple songs i love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JusB0GbbkV8&tracker=False

I'm not saying the effects don't stand up well. They're great, even today! I'm just saying that when that movie first came out in the 1968, they were absolutely astonishing as virtually nothing that good had been seen before on screen. My theory is that because they were so impressive and unprecedented for the time, having such long scenes with the rotating ships made more sense since they more visually interesting to viewers. If Kubrick made that flick today (and was still alive), would he have made those particular scenes so tremendously slow/long? That's all i'm saying. Maybe there's another reason Kubrick cut those scenes that way, i could be wrong. I think the movie still holds up very well. It's a great flick, I just think it painfully drags in parts.

Every major political party in this country is steaming pile of crap. It sure would be nice if time in the House could be spent debating issues to improve Canadian lives, rather than being spent holding the government to account with scandal after scandal. The CPC, like the Liberals before them, are a bunch of corrupt & greedy scum. Why do we have to keep making laws plugging up loop-holes so that politicians/parties don't take advantage of them even when they should know that abusing them is clearly wrong?

Because newspapers can't take positions. Only people can. I was lonely one day, so i dug that day's newspaper out of the recycling bin and asked for it's opinion on the current recession. For some reason it didn't respond, so i threw it back in the trash.

Those scenes in 2001 with the spinning space stations were so long and draggy, destroyed the pacing of that movie early on. I guess those special f/x were a lot more amazing back then though to keep viewers (and Kubrick) occupied.

Was their ever a practical purpose for the spike on top of the Pickelhaube? Was it ever designed/used as a weapon, or simply for ornamental purposes? I can probably see why they got rid of it during WWI, i wouldn't want to be walking around with a big vertical spike on my helmet while walking around in the trenches.

Pretty good documentary. It's crazy to think how different ordinary people were back then, many still believing in the divine right of kings and in the holy do-no-wrongs of the church. Also fascinating to be reminded how horrible conditions were for many workers under laissez-faire capitalism back then, and how Socialism/Communism and Fascism were a reaction to this. Interesting to hear the quotes from the leaders of the time, whom predicted the future and the great war. For those that bemoan current US hegemony, is a multi-polar world any better an alternative?

Funeral March by Frederic Chopin A good one. I love John Williams, but he clearly "borrowed" this tune (consciously or not) for his classic for Empire Strikes Back, although he turned up the tempo.

I'd define power, in social terms, as the ability to make and/or influence other people to do as you wish. Money is money. We buy stuff with it. But it is a great source of power, since money buys power. Money can make and/or influence other people to do as you wish. But there are other sources of power other than money of course.

I have no problem with an opinion writer, author of a letter to an editor, or of course an internet forum participant maintaining anonymity. It doesn't make an argument weaker or stronger based on if it's signed or not by an identifiable person. However, unsigned newspaper editorials are different. An editorial presents its views as if it's backed by the editorial team, or even backed by the newspaper as a whole. It's using the "prestige" of the newspaper itself to give its argument more credibility, when in fact nobody knows who's writing this opinion or who exactly within the paper's staff it represents. IE: in the Ottawa Citizen, an editorial will usually appear under the heading "Our Views". Who is "our"?

"If there's fluff on the muff then they're old enough." - Ali G I don't actually believe that, it's just a hilarious quote.

I can't stand unsigned newspaper editorials. You know what i'm talking about, the opinion articles in a newspaper that supposedly represent the views of the editorial staff, or more generally the newspaper itself. Being unsigned, i find them deceiving and usually don't even bother reading them. Is the article the opinion of all the senior editors in agreement? Is this the opinion of the editor-in-chief himself/herself pushing their views under the umbrella of the whole editorial staff/paper? Is this just the opinion of 2 or 3 editors? Or the opinion pushed by the publisher/owner of the paper, with nothing to do with the individual editorial staffers? It's almost impossible to know the power structure/politics going on among any given editorial staff. I find it hard to believe all members of an editorial staff would all agree on the controversial issues looked at in most editorials. Even more laughable are when newspapers endorse political candidates/parties during an election. What does that even mean??? Exactly who supports them? Again, is it the publisher/owner? Editor-in-chief? A combo of some editors and not others? And why should i even care? Conclusion: IMO, if you're going to write an opinion piece, especially one that uses words like "we think", the authors should sign their individual names instead of hiding behind the "powerful" banner of the entire newspaper.

Again, do you have any evidence to back this up? We can argue the causes of homosexuality. However, the heart of what i disagreed with in your earlier post is that homosexuality is a "choice". Again, the homosexual acts are a choice (as are heterosexual acts are), but the desire isn't. I heard this statistic today from a social worker on television: In Ottawa, 1 in 4 males from the ages of 15-24 who commit suicide are identified to have been gay. This is evidence that many of these males didn't want to be gay, and in fact the situation disturbed them or their lives so much that they decided to kill themselves. There's stricter gender norms for males than females, ie: social pressure to "be a man" and be tough or whatever. I just don't know of many people, male or female, who would "want" to gay, or transgender or whatever. It's a damn tough road, especially as a teenager, to go through all the social stigma, parental shame/scorn etc.

When the Libya crisis first hit, Saudi Arabia said it would make up for any loss in production/exports from Libya. Yet the prices still went up. Huh? Yuppers, never waste a good crisis.

Anytime i hear about the causes of homosexuality they always say that is caused by biological and/or environmental factors. But the "homosexuality is a choice" thing is just bogus. Putting your pinker in another guy's stinker is a choice, liking it is not. All your "theories" and assumptions are based on hunches. You should look into actual scientific research studies done on the subject, for which i'm sure there are tons. Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly source.

Assuming you're the type of person who is never tempted to speak rudely/insulting to someone or whatnot. I guess it would be easy then. I think holding oneself to the highest standard would be a bit of change/challenge for most people here. The actual warnings/reporting wouldn't be so hard.

u try deleting the sig? edit: all the text i just wrote above appear bold to me too. definately try deleting the sig.

I don't think this is a thread meant for everyone to nominate their choices. I think Greg/Charles (and whomever) have a good grasp of who is and who isn't facilitator material, and i'll trust their judgment. I think it would be a tough job though for whomever gets it, not something i would want nor am qualified to do based on me being an arse too much of the time (and loving it!) . But good luck to whomever gets the job.

yup, remember this guy. How do you just "drop a deal"? I'm sure the Dragons have to double-check the statements of sales figures and everything that the pitch people say on the show, and have their lawyers etc. go through everything before a finalized deal is made. But 7 months seems like a long time. I would hate to do a deal with Kevin O'Leary, he seems so ruthless and profit-driven that he would screw people around and drop people without notice the moment they don't financially benefit him anymore. At least the others seem to have a better sense of business ethics. But on the other hand, if you got a profitable & watertight deal with Kevin i'm sure he would do his best to make both him & you as much money as humanly possible. Love that show!

agreed. Mental illness gets kicked to the curb when it comes to our universal health system as well.

Of course its in your opinion, just like your "people not being born gay" stuff is too. None of it is based on science or research studies, or any kind of empirical evidence to back up your claims.

I said that the containment strategy worked, I never said the methods weren't highly flawed and not atrociously inhumane. My main argument is that the Bush admin orchestrated an organized campaign of lies, deception, and intimidation, among other things, based on fantasy WMD's and terror links in order to receive the support and legality they wanted/needed so they could execute their own neocon dream of regime change via military invasion in Iraq. If they wanted military invasion, then they should have argued their case based on known facts and reason, not make up BS to frighten people to their side, while assuming all would be ok once they found the WMD’s they were “convinced” Iraq had but just had no proof of. By doing so they hijacked democracy in their own country & the entire point of separation of powers by deceiving the public and Congress (along with a bogus NIE based on White House intimidation of CIA analysts), & not letting them make up their own minds on the decision for war based on facts. Bush admin also spread its crap to the UN and other govs, not to mention citizenry worldwide whom many put pressure on their govs to join the coalition based on their BS. The stakes ie: hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties makes this even more morally outrageous. As I’ve stated before, I supported the 2003 invasion based on claims of nuclear capability and I lobbied my gov to join the coalition (though now that im older/wiser my position may have been different if put in the same situation). So the fact the US lied to me and could have resulted in Canada invading Iraq as well had the Liberals not been in power really makes me PO’d. Those responsible should be held accountable, & my opinion of that is in the OP. You thinking I have “selective disgust” is bogus, one issue at a time. Your butt getting chapped anytime someone criticized your gov/country is also crap, that’s the price of US hegemony; if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.