Moonlight Graham

It's an exercise in fairness & objectivity, and trying to have an intellectual mindset rather than just a passionate one. If everything you think about politicians you disagree with is negative then that probably says more about you than them. The opposite of trying to be fair & objective is, well, Shady re: Obama. WE MUST ALL TRY TO AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!

Jean Chretien (with Martin) balanced the budget and reduced the debt, which they both deserve huge credit for. Harper - calm and calculating, seems rational. Is intelligent. Not a bad musician. Doesn't let opinions about sweater-vests phase his love of sweater-vests. Stalin - again, superb alpha-male mustache. Brought the beatdown to Hitler in WWII. Rick Santorum - loves his family. again, sticks with sweater-vests despite public opinion. Stays true to his religious convictions...mostly. George W Bush is still mostly a nice guy (though dumb and naive), would be a good neighbour, could have some fun BBQ's with him & family, throw the baseball around. Is largely responsible for Saddam being removed from power, as well as the Taliban. Is a strong, decisive leader. Seems somewhat regretful over his mistakes (even if doesn't say it publicly). Prevented another terrorist attack on US/North Am. soil after 9/11. Dick Cheney - tough one! also helped prevent other post-9/11 North Am. terrors attack. Is calm, is a good liar, knows how to get what he wants politically, knows how to turn bad situations (9/11) into an asset, hasn't airstriked/waterboarded his gay daughter. Saddam Hussein - strong, decisive leader. Hard to intimidate. Didn't give a fudge what people thought of him. Fantastic mustache.

An MP shouldn't always have to vote for what their constituents want, but at least vote with their best interests in mind and at heart, as opposed to whatever the party leader and his close advisers want. Don't you think it's absolute nonsense to have a political atmosphere where every MP is FORCED (or face punishment/being kicked out) to comply with what the party leadership/caucus decides and then having to lie to the public by trumpeting that stance as what you believe is right rather than having the freedom to disagree in either speech or deed (vote). As an MP, you are basically denied your freedom of expression, so is Parliament party-politics unconstitutional? Also, there should be many more referendums (done during regular elections) on questions that the masses can handle and are of moral consequence, as the U.S. does. 100% direct democracy isn't ideal IMO, but if the general public can handle it ie: it's not an complex issue requiring mountains of reading/research, they should be able to vote on it. When was the last time you remember voting in a referendum?

This would be fantastic, but due to confidence votes & the power of the PM, among other things, it tends not to work like this. The annual budget is a confidence vote. All members need to vote as a bloc to keep their jobs and prevent an election. But the trend is that things stay that way and even non-confidence votes there is great pressure on MP's to vote as a bloc. The PM position in our system has far too much power, and the parties themselves have far too much of an internal power hierarchy, which in itself is undemocratic. Backbenchers vs cabinet ministers vs the PM, where your MP sits really matters. The PM ultimately determines who is/isn't in cabinet, who is/isn't in the party, who can speak during Question Period, who will get swanky traveling posts, ambassadorships, who will sit in Senate, sit in committees, in Supreme Court etc. It's bullcrap IMO, a flawed system where power is too easily concentrated.

Hilarious.

Yes, especially since it's hard to physically observe empirically things like bipolar disorder, psychosis, and schizophrenia. I'm not a neurologist, maybe there are brain scans that can observe these things happening in the brain? Rather than just relying on a psychiatrist's and others' observations of the patient.

heh, no not really, but i think it's the way in which it was wasted. Also, slow news week/month lol.

This story will make any taxpayer go mad with fury: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/did-taxpayers-get-good-value-for-10000-report-from-down-under/article2445828/ $10,000 for 10 days of taking pictures at scenic/touristy sites during an Xmas holiday winter getaway, and to produce a 115-page annotated photo album (professional scrapbooking?). Arrrgg!! Maybe she should be fired, and ordered to pay back some or all of the nonsense. We can give her the photos back in payment.

If a person is schizophrenic or severely bipolar, chops off a head, and then is found to have mental illness, is given proper needed medication and improves dramatically, and is proven to stay on that medic willfully on his own accord (given the meds as any one would a prescription, and remembers to take it everyday) I don't see why you wouldn't let that person on the street. But there has to be a solid amount of time in custody to them to prove they can stay on the meds consistently and want to stay on them without be forced or reminded, just as they would be as a free person living on their own. That said, I have no idea what Li's mental disorder was.

Don't you mean the "humans and who walked the earth with dinosaurs" believers the CPC fronted? This is polls doesn't mean much at all. It's fun to support an idealistic populist party in a poll, but another thing to mark their name on election day. But heck, i'd give them a shot

No, that's your view of justice (or our particular societies view in terms of the law). Justice more accurately means what is morally right, or righteous. Going back to Socrates and Plato and there have been thousands of years of people debating what "justice" is or isn't. Point being, everybody's view of what is justice is different, because everyone's morality is different. As for "social justice", that term refers to what is socially morally right, or what is the right moral treatment for people in society. This seems like a definition that would be different for many different people. Social justice for a libertarian could be that everyone is allowed to do mostly what they want with minimal interference from the state. However, the actual definition you find in textbooks seems to be highjacked by a certain group of people who value egalitarianism. Seems like "social justice" should more accurately be termed "social equality", as you say also.

This is a really weird story. 11 times???

Saying my opinion is such merely I've been "conditioned" is insulting to me. You're assuming a lemming who doesn't know how to think for myself. I took a university course on climate change, it was taught by an influential "denier" and a close colleague of Carter. I had the 5th highest grade out of nearly 400 students in the class, so I'm no fool nor ignorant of Carter's arguments. Why is the burden of proof on me? The burden of proof should be on Carter, who is making the initial argument. His article hardly addressed the 2 points you suggest above. He went off and talked about how temperature before 1979 isn't very reliable, and goes to argue once more than recent climate change is mostly naturally caused etc. His thesis is interesting, his evidence is lacking.

More accurately, in the wake of WWII, the UN was created with the main idea of preventing war between the great powers from happening again, to prevent another WWI or WWII. So far this has been achieved. Collective security has been shown throughout history to be an fairly effective concept at securing peace between states. Far better than the entangling security alliances that led to WWI. Or all the crazy wars between Europe powers from, say, the 17th century to the defeat of Napoleon. The 5 permanent members of the Security Council are still, arguably, the greatest military powers in the world. The UN does need reform, but the greatest military powers also need some kind of say in order to reflect real power politics. Madagascar having an equal say in global security matters as ie: the US or China doesn't make a lot of real political sense. Also, I don't think any international body will ever be able to prevent all civil wars, like Sudan or Libya or Somalia, from occurring. Though I do think the UN, if it had more balls, could have prevented a lot of what happened in Rwanda.

God forbid an article be *gasp* peer-reviewed! Though admittedly there are even some problems with that concept, though not as many as an article not being reviewed at all. Bob Carter, world-famous for leading the scientific charge that recent climate change/global warming has not been primarily caused by anthropogenic factors. Financial Post/National Post, famous for trumpeting the denier mantra. However, here Carter presents a fairly level-headed article. However, I disagree with his assertion that we should deal with the real consequences posed by climate change as they come along rather than prevent our contributions to it (assuming human contribution of CO2 is significant driver of recent climate change). That's like saying we should deal with the consequences of hole in the ozone as they come along. Kinda like the weather. Nobody can exactly predict what the climate will be in a given region 50 years from now, but they can make an educated estimation, like weather.

I doubt when Marx called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" he had Stalin and Mao in mind, or maybe even a "dictatorship" in the literal modern sense at all. Some of those serious flaws in humanity include twisting a theory a little bit in order to consolidate absolute power. IMO it would be interesting to see communism tried in a country minus the totalitarian dictator part.

In related news, I'm getting a Target store in my area next year. It's replacing my local Zellers of course. Globalization means transnational corporations kick some Canadian corp. butt, but also low, low, lower prices.

Well the most stupid of us are in jail because they've done stupid things & are stupid enough to get caught for it, and in jail they don't really get much of a chance to breed (unless they already have a wife or whatever), to that should help things out a little bit.

How about you come back later and try this thread again without sounding like a know-it-all pompous ass? So basically you want us to tell you what we think social justice is so you can tell us how wrong we are. Nice.

this is worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__HeE6NWmDE

That's the whole point. It's a brilliantly simple question. My initial thought was "Oh, i think it's $10" but then I took the time to actually figure it out in my head to confirm before answering and then I figured out it was $5.

Great, does this mean that getting a flu shot means the Canadian government secretly has my DNA too? Conspiracy theory!

Canada and the US should go to war again. It would celebrate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 in style! With ceremonial burning down of the White House and ceremonial indians running around cutting people's heads of. [/sarcasm]

Would like to see it, grew up a big comic fan, but in no rush. Ya Hawkeye aka Archery Man lol doesn't seem to fit the motif of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes", nor does Ant-Man nor Wasp and some others, but Hawkeye is a longtime mainstay of the team. If you're gonna make an "all-star" team of Marvel heroes don't you have to put guys like Spider-Man and Wolverine in there? Though those don't really qualify as "earth's mightiest", but who cares. The Justice League, DC's equivalent, is made up of heroes like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern etc., a true all-star cast!

But you shouldn't have to try to make yourself look unbiased, if you value peace over blame, and you defend "justice and human rights", shouldn't that be your bias?