Moonlight Graham

You can agree or disagree with the dancer's funding, but that interview was an utter garbage piece of journalism. The host completely ambushed her & very rudely ripped her apart. The dancer kept her composure and completed the interview gracefully.

Rich people deserve more tax cuts. Welfare cheques must be cut back because the working poor are lazy and obviously not working hard enough.

Virtually anything that is a music video on MTV/MuchMusic. Up until about 10 years ago they used to make good music videos featuring good music. Some people would actually be playing guitars (gasp!). Now it's 90% trash videos of trash music.

No need to spell out the obvious.

Say what? Anybody else see the irony in this?

that's pretty neat.

9th largest oil reserves in the world. I think that makes it a major oil power.

I like this quote from the CBC article in OP:

Thank freaking god. Labour disputes shouldn't be able to hijack a country like this. Off to the mailbox tomorrow.

Buy guns and gasoline.

I have never been drunk/buzzed in my life, while virtually all of my friends and family i've ever known drink. I just have no desire to drink, therefore i choose not to. I successfully have avoided the peer pressure that is associated with social alcoholic consumption while 98% of my friends and peers have given in to this at some point. If purple polka-dot pants came into fashion i wouldn't do that either. The lawyer has a point, but everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you are convinced to do something you know is wrong just because everyone else is doing it then what are you? A fool? A sheep? A coward? I dunno, but you aren't innocent by any means and you don't get my sympathy for participating in group riots like a friggin' idiot.

None of those people are anything great. Tell me when they nab Wolf, Fareed Zakaria, Christiane Amanpour, or preemie-looking Anderson Cooper. CNN is a bit of a joke anyways, and FOX is a complete joke.

If the confession is made to Oprah on television, Simpson will not, however, suffer legal consequences. Under the law of double jeopardy, a second trial is forbidden following an acquittal. Justice!

This was released 2 years ago, but still very cool: tank man

Yes it's a horrible situation. But there's no incentive in place to make them look past their terms, except maybe their 'legacy' (but i'd argue they also spend recklessly for their 'legacy'). We need to put in incentives...maybe if their pension was proportional to the economic health of the country?

Good news, at least to me:

Humans are idiots. Destroying the planet isn't much affecting me now, so why care, right?

Of course there's no loop-hole around these rules, right? A CEO, their spouse, the board of directors and their families etc. cant make donations of course.

i'll bet that;s it.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, the only candidates i saw running for Pres last election who had any sort of real honest conviction (and weren't complete idiots). It's nice to know there are still some decent politicians out there. The problem with Ron Paul is he isn't "Republican' enough for the con voters. he needs to want to blow stuff up, hate homos, that sort of deal.

I thought the NDP were more in line with "Social Democracy" that straight socialism?

Yes i realize this. It still certainly presents a problem. Ideally, the PM/caucus/MP's are accountable to the electorate. Not sucking up to each other, but to us.

That's a fantastic idea. Right now the leader has almost all the leverage vs his caucus, this would balance the tables and make them both accountable to each other.

In theory yes, but that;s often not how the game works. 'I will appoint you if you support me or do X, Y, and Z.' (whether implicit or implied). This is, by definition, cronyism: "Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer." Certainly sometimes Senators/judges and other appointees will reneg on the 'deal', but the deal exists nonetheless. Yes the GG provides a check on the power of the PM, but by constitutional convention they virtually always act on the advice of the PM...unless the PM goes absolutely ape-nuts. Can you provide some examples?