Moonlight Graham

Oh boy! You may have seen ol' Dick making the media rounds this past week promoting his newly released memoir. I'm going to buy a copy for all my relatives this year for Christmas, it'll make for a warm cozy read with the family around the fireplace. Here's Dick on The Today Show this week: Dick! Defending the use of torture/waterboarding in the interview, Dick says: "First of all, remember we weren't dealing with American citizens." After hearing this quote, a colleague of mine put it aptly: "That line says it all right there. Violence can only flow in one direction - down the hierarchy of perceived worth."

Does this mean no more San Diego Chicken? Or Mickey Mouse at Disneyland? Or Spartacat???

BEHOLD! THE POWER OF A PIECE OF CLOTH! Oh great scarf, how thy gentle fibers divide man against each other. Fear not nuclear weapons nor climate change, for it is cloth that shall ignite the funeral pyre for the human race.

He might make a good Secretary of Defense though. Seriously, freakin' eh!...Canada will take him for Minister of National Defense if you guys don't want him lol.

Somebody offers to sell you a brand new Ferrari for $10, but the car horn sings "La Cucaracha" when u honk it. You still don't buy it?

Many US policies that are considered "domestic" also have massive implications on the rest of the world. Yes of course Americans are obviously massively affected by their gov's own domestic policies. But, given the era of globalization we have increasingly been living in, i think one could make a strong argument that the rest of the global population is, in sum, more greatly affected by US domestic policies as a whole (yes, one could of course nit-pick certain individual policies) than Americans themselves. This may even be the case with other countries as well, maybe even Canada, but since the US is by far the most powerful it also has the most influence. Fair enough point...unless a country is forced to comply to another country's will (via violent or non-violent coercion), or the threat (direct or indirect) of such.

You really think Americans would be the only ones affected by such things? History, including a look at US and global economics during the last month and a half, prove the opposite. Paul does a have a chance at POTUS, albeit a very slim one given the powers that are stacked against him as others have alluded to. The fact that he's even in the conversation and on the debating stage with the rest of them is a miracle in itself. And yes Michael Hardner, most of Paul's domestic policies are ludicrous.

Things that are absolutely amazing about the video in the OP: - those words were spoken by an elected US politician!...on the floor of House of Representatives! - the words were spoken...by a Republican! - this Republican is a major candidate for the 2012 US presidential election (WHAT?!?!) - he is from Texas (though was not born/raised in Texas IIRC, so not a full-blooded cowboy) The fact that somebody like Ron Paul actually has some kind of reasonable chance of becoming the Republican nominee in 2012 provides me with some hope for humanity.

Funny how less than a decade ago the Canadian Alliance and PC party were splitting the conservative vote vs the Liberals and then merged, and now the 2 major leftwing parties think they're splitting the vote vs the CPC and there is talk of a merge. The NDP would be foolish to do such a thing now given their momentum. If i were an NDP'er i'd give it another federal election, or at least much later in the CPC's term (which has hardly really even begun). they could see more gains in popular support in the polls if they do ok as the Opposition. Obviously makes one wonder how far they'd have gone with Jack still alive and leading.

Would you rather him, or someone in a similar situation, in handcuffs, or pinned down face first on the floor? Or physically restrained in another way by the cops? Full-nelson perhaps? Or a Jiu-Jitsu elbow lock? Or roll him up in a rug? The safety of everyone, including the kid, were likely at risk, so handcuffs seem like a safe option. There is certainly unpleasant connotations that come with being placed in handcuffs (ie: like he was being "arrested" or did something "unlawful", which it doesn't seem like the case), so I can see the mother's point of view, but she should have some empathy of the situation the cops were in. Intent of the cops should be looked at, ie: they probably weren't trying to arrest the kid or treat him like a thug, they just wanted to retrain him and cuffs are a safe tool they use for that purpose. Then again, there is probably some kind of code of practice for cops in situations like this, and they may be discouraged from cuffing young kids or people in general with these kinds of disorders. We don't know the whole story, but I think the mom should try to give the cops a bit of slack, they were likely just trying to keep the boy and everyone safe until he calmed down.

Most of these questions you're asking can be answered by a quick google search. No need to fill up the forums with vacation questions.

You don't need a few months. Have some people go on a hunger strike at the site and you could have similar if not better results in only a couple of weeks or less. Would save on money too, and no need for "kitchens".

Comparing health care systems, the proof is in the pudding. The majority of universal systems in the developed world, including Canada's, have better results and better dollar-for-value than the US system. Americans are literally killing themselves by valuing idealism/ideology over statistics. Many Americans believe strongly in small government and the virtues of the free market over gov't ownership/intervention (though not when big corps come begging for bailouts, oddly enough). Logic seems to say a Canada/Europe-style universal system would be better and cheaper than the current US system, so the resistance to this it irrational (as well as political, re: powerful private insurance companies and health industry in general that oppose it).

From everything i've read the HST in BC was good for business and the overall economy (in the longterm at least), not so good for consumers.

That's just sick, and in really bad taste. C'mon Jack, do you have to make it political even in death? In your final letter, and in where you wish people to donate? Also, where does it even say Layton's wish was for donations to the "Broadbent Institute"? Here's an idea, how about you suggest people donate to the cancer cause of their choice instead? A non-partisan and more tasteful alternative i'd say. edit: It says in memoriam donations should be make to the Broadbent Institute on Jack's website. When you click on the donate link it says: His family? Or Jack?

Agreed as well. Why didn't everyone love this guy so much why he was actually alive? All of a sudden my Facebook page is flooded with friends giving all these Layton tributes. He wasn't a saint. Underneath the rhetoric he generally meant well i think, but he was far from a saint, and well far away from being an honest politician. He was a lying kiss-ass sellout like all the rest. It's tragic and sad that he died, but c'mon.

Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth exist? Very likely. Did he visit a place named the Pool of Siloam? Let's be optimistic and say probably. But get back to me when they find evidence that he healed a blind person there. Man why do i even bother?

Fear and emotion based on the effects of monetary policy.

The US spends more on defense than every other country in the world combined.

Exactly. For me, that's the key argument. It seems like mostly a win-win to me. Those that can pay get their healthcare faster, while at the same time this frees up spots/facilities for those using public care. But the thing is that doctors doing the private thing would be taken way from the public system, possibly weakening it. And there would need to be controls on who and how many doctors could go fully private so that the public system doesn't go to poop. You don't want all the best doctors going private. The ideal to have equal healthcare access for all people regardless of income is noble and I totally get that, but in the end what is most important is what makes Canadians as a whole more healthy, both those who can pay privately and those who can't.

Isn't that the system we have now? Many doctors have private practices that are publicly paid for through insurance. Publicly funded, privately delivered.

Then why do they usually rank lower than Canada and many other developed countries in many health-related areas, including health care systems? In 2000 the WHO ranked them 37th for HC systems, even though the US was #1 in per capita HC spending. If you have the money, i'd say the US is likely the best place on earth for healthcare. If you're an average joe or poor, you can get f'ed. I have friends from Tennessee, the dad is a doctor & his wife needs hip surgery. She got an operation scheduled within a few weeks, but they don't have the best insurance plan (even though the husband is a doctor!) so she has to pay $6000 out of her pocket for the deductible in order to get the surgery. Lucky he's an MD, how many people have $6000 bucks?!?

How would a 2-tier system ruin any patient financially? The people with money get private care, the ones that don't get public. User fees are a bit controversial too. If you introduce them, it hurts the poor the most because they will avoid seeking care while the people who have money won't much give a rip and will begrudgingly pay it but go anyways. The poor are already less healthy than higher income earners. If user fees are implemented there should be a waiver for people with a certain income, how they'd do that I have no idea. Also, there's already defacto user fees in many hospitals and office buildings because they make you pay for parking. Both my GP and my nearest hospital does that.

you ass!

I have no idea. From what i've seen, if you talk like a jerk you usually can get away with it. If you are an abusive jerk or get many complaints you might get a warning and eventually suspended/banned. If you get into the area of hate speech or spam the forum on a new account you can get banned, along with more serious offenses. When I first joined years ago the moderation was a lot more strict, a lot more strict than most internet forums. I think it made it a better place. Jerkstore attacks weren't allowed. But now the moderators don't seem to have the time anymore to keep on top of things that closely, to the point where they asked our friend Michael Hardner to help them moderate the forums a few months ago. My advice to you would be to keep posting here for a bit longer to see how it works before you start trying to change the place.