Moonlight Graham

Occupy Wall Street. The basic premise seems simple, and just. Those on Wall Street were some of the ones greatly responsible for the recent economic meltdown. Because of their greed, stupid risk-taking, and short-sightedness. They deserve our collective middle finger salute, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. And who cares if the protesters have laptops and digital camera? The point isn't that corporations are irrelevant and shouldn't exist, the point is that they acted and still act wrongly & people are rightly PO'd, and if you aren't PO'd you're a sucker.

Got Bin Laden though. That will be his campaign slogan. "I got that bitch. Right in the face. 2012."

Excuse to get UN or allies to slap tighter sanctions on Iran, or get countries them to better enforce the current sanctions? Take public attention off US economic woes the White House is currently getting a lot of blame for (election season is coming too)? Helps build a case for possible future bombing of Iran nuke facilities? Then why would they use easily traceable money wires from Iran to US? This wasn't claimed to be a typical terror plot from a non-state group of rag-tags, it is said to have been planned by the Iranian government.

TV isn't that good these days. My fav shows now are probably Pawn Stars, Auction Hunters, and Deadliest Warrior. I watch a lot of news. Also like watching The Ultimate Fighter UFC reality show. I used to love Lost, but that's gone & it really started to suck after Season 3 anyways. I watched the 1st episode of Game of Thrones but it kinda sucked even though I like that genre.

Surprised no thread on this yet. If you've been living under a rock and haven't heard this story yet, here's a snippet: Full article here. There's been many pundits and analysts in the media casting doubt on the validity of this accusation by the US gov, and some accusing the White House of twisting or even fabricating this alleged terror plot. Some such articles: Reuters: Questions abound over Iran "plot" to kill Saudi envoy Iranian Terror Plot: Fake, Fake, Fake Would Iran Really Want to Blow Up the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.? So what do you guys think? Just a plot from rogue Quds members? Sound fishy/made up? Credible threat? If credible, how should the US respond? Personally I'm very skeptical of the accusations. What would Iran gain from a successful attack vs the grave consequences of a US/Saudi military response? Why was easily traceable money wires and cell phone calls used by the accused? Why did Iran want to contract a Mexican drug cartel to pull off the bombing when, as a Mexican cartel expert on CNN claimed, these cartels have no previous experience bombing targets and also would be unlikely to take a measly (for them) 1.5 mil for it when such actions would incur a huge clampdown on the cartel(s) by Mexican and US govs. On top of this, history has shown that I have no reason to believe anything that the White House says. They need to bring forward a heck of a lot of evidence to convince me this may be credible.

I agree. If you want to get A's while taking your BA or similar degrees, you have to put in the time, you have to have some intelligence, and you must be able to write and critically analyze very well. I took some statistics research courses for political science. I didn't find them super-easy (math is never fun), but I did get an A+ in all of them because with math you either have the right number as your answer or you don't. There is no subjective opinion of the profs/TA's marking your essays like in most "arts" classes. Getting an A+ on an essay is damn near impossible, which is why I found the stats classes much easier to get better grades. I had a friend in high school who was excellent at math, and took all math classes in his final year of HS, and he ended the year with a 98% or 99% average or something ridiculous like that.

I've watched his show. He isn't insane. He isn't Glenn Beck. Sometimes he can go off on rants that are totally off-base (and can be an ass), but I find he has pretty typical conservative views ie: small government, reduction of the "nanny state", protecting civil liberties etc. He can sometimes make valid points, though ones I may not always agree with.

There should be some universal standard, but it must be broad to include the worst offenses, and not every freedom only some cultures hold dear. Some cultures cut the foreskin of the penis off their babies, while i'm sure other cultures would find that disgusting & cruel. Freedom from things like murder, rape, genocide, slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest/detention, and i'm sure more, could be called universal rights I would hope. Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads like the US Bill of Rights or similar texts, clearly having a western view of rights even though they apparently honestly tried to have people from all major cultures help draft it (with the exclusion of an African rep I believe).

I agree. If you compare the media coverage of ie: war in & around the DRC, it pales in comparison to Israel-Palestinian conflict coverage during the same time-frame even though the death tolls aren't even close to being comparable. Reasons for the attention, IMO: - Security interests, since what happens in the Middle East has long been important to the West due to oil politics, which draws us into its conflicts. Also, obvious importance of Middle East politics since 9/11. - The powerful Israel lobby makes issues in Israel disproportionally important to leaders, especially in the US. - A lot of Western media is run by Jewish people. - The holocaust, which still has a large legacy in the west, and maybe Western guilt over it has something to do with our interest in the Israel-Palestinian conflict & the rights of Jews there. But mainly I think it's the 1st 3 reasons.

This is the problem with human rights in general. All "human rights" are subjective, philosophical moral judgments based on what people deem as right or wrong.

The state of federal politics in both the US and Canada is pretty grim, for different reasons, but it results in a deficit of good leadership candidates in both countries and problems in democratic governance. Any person smart enough to be a great leader of the US or Canada would also be smart enough not to get mixed up in nonsense of federal politics. I'm sure they're content to kick ass & be rich in the private sector. It's so much tougher these days to be in the political limelight given the digital age of instant news we live in. Also, the systems are stacked against any honest person wishing to be POTUS or PM. Wouldn't it be great to be able to truly get behind a leader you trusted and believed in? Who could actually lead? I've seen glimmers of these types of people but they are usually fringe candidates with not much hope of winning, or have other flaws like age.

The article says Khadr is applying to return, he isn't coming back yet. I agree with the NDP'er in the video. Khadr may be scum & even an enemy of the state, but he is a Canadian citizen and should have the legal right to be locked up in a Canadian jail & out of the craphole that is Gitmo. Even scumbags have due process/legal rights.

The slippery slope is that if you care about the human rights ethics of importing from one country on one product, then you should be consistent and care about the human rights ethics of all imports from all countries. There are many products produced in countries with "unethical" regimes that Canada could choose to get from other countries. ie: Canada could get more or possibly all of its cotton from the US rather than China or Pakistan. Furthermore, if one cares about ethical imports then having Western businesses and consumers getting their products manufactured in countries like China presents ethical problems, since most Chinese manufacturing workers work under nasty conditions for peanut wages (about 60 cents/hour on average). Western countries also use their clout to secure very lopsided & exploitative terms of trade from virtually every underdeveloped country on the planet. All of this forms the very idea of "fair trade" products. If Canadians/the West bought all of their products for ethical fair-trade prices/conditions, our standard of living would plummet. Jump to conclusions much? Where did I say profits were bad? My point is that i'm willing to wager that Ezra Levant, a conservative from Alberta, is really only concerned with increased production/profits from Alberta oil sands, and is using the ethical oil argument to advance this interest when he likely doesn't give much of a toot about the human rights of Saudi women etc.

Levant makes a good argument (though I question its intent...is it an argument more concerned with ethics or more with Alberta oil profits?). However, it is a slippery slope that he can't maintain. If one wants to say Saudi Arabian oil is unethical and we should wean off of it because it allows Western support for horrible regimes, then we must also acknowledge all of the vast number of products that Canadians depend on that come (in whole or in part)from countries/governments with poor human rights records. If the West takes a stand against products/resources from China, or other countries with authoritative regimes in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, then people of the West would literally have to give up the shirts off their backs and the homes they live in. It's quite sad to realize that in order to live even remotely close to what most would deem ethical, Canadians/Westerners would have to suffer a gigantic reduction in their standard of living. - Also, Levant has even written a book on ethical oil.

I agree with this. Private citizens protesting Wall Street, ultimately, will not lead to any real change by those on Wall Street. To them, money talks. If protests don't affect their bottom line, it's irrelevant. Banks, corporations, investors etc. will do just about anything and exploit any legal loopholes in order to maximize profit. Therefore, what must be done is proper and careful regulation of "Wall Street" and corporations/businesses to prevent the type of bullcrap that as happened recently from happening again (at least the part of which is the fault of Wall Street/business/investors). So yes, protests in Washington might be more effective. But at least this protest gives out the signal that people are PO'd and are watching "Wall Street" closely. The President has even taken notice, so that's something.

I'm actually impressed they have the trash in bags in a pile and seemingly not thrown about everywhere. All they need is someone to take it away. I would think just about any prolonged protest in a downtown metropolis would have sanitation issues. Somebody should have organized to dispose of the trash, but probably not the 1st things on their minds at the time.

Fuck Wall Street, and fuck The Man. He lives to bite you in the ass so he can feed himself. Yum! There's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, it's all what people make of the system. We wouldn't need government regulation, police, or militaries if people weren't a-holes.

I find it ironic that you are probably the most hateful person on these boards. You are entertaining to read...comparing people you dislike to "rats"...where have I heard that before? The irony!

Get rid of the "British" monarchy and crown me King of Canada please. Nelly Furtado can be my Queen. But seriously, though i'm not a fan of the monarchy or the idea of it in a democracy, the Crown still works fairly effectively and any change to get rid of it would mean opening the massive can of worms that is constitutional reform....and then even if we could change it there's still major doubts it would work any better.

IMO its too close to call, though if I have to pick I'll go with McGuinty. NDP ain't winning. I've had a hard time voting in both this election and the last federal election. My views on important issues span both sides of the left-right spectrum so I get torn between the parties. I probably am closest to the Liberal Party of any party in terms of ideology, but they are such a bunch of crooked liars I couldn't stand to vote for them this election (or most elections). I live in a very strong conservative riding anyways so my vote doesn't mean too much (but of course I still voted!)

edit: wrong thread...

Kinda has a point, at least in Canada, doesn't he?

Somewhat indifferent about Jobs' death. I was never an Apple guy, in fact i've never purchased any Apple product in my life. Not because I have anything against the man or company, other than the fact that I found Apple products very overpriced compared to the competitors. I have free Quicktime software on my PC because I need it to run some things, and I use iTunes to organize my mp3's, though I've never bought anything from the service. I admire modern Apple products for their sleek and well-constructed & functional design. I just personally found better options for me out there (especially PC's with their better options and price). I was also never one to jump on the ie: tablet bandwagon just because it had an Apple logo on it. Jobs' was a fine CEO obviously. Jobs and Layton's death are kind of similar for me, I was never a big supporter of theirs but had some respect for them nonetheless. Well, a bit apples and oranges, plus a lot of people are jailbreaking their iphones/ipads etc. or opting for Android phones for the freedom and customization.

There is a little more ignorant than putting ideology before facts and stats. Maybe the CPC MP's should all go see the movie 'Moneyball'?

Some underdeveloped countries, such as the "Asian Tigers", have shown solid growth in GDP per capita, but mainly the tiny ones (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc.) that seem to compare to Western countries in that stat. Are workers in countries like China and India really "catching up" that much? Both countries have high GDP totals, but their populations are also massive, so their GDP-per-capita is still very low, not even close to OECD countries. Can the average worker in China or India or even Mexico or Brazil afford to buy an Ipad?