Moonlight Graham

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.

i think major public transportation like city buses should be deemed essential services and strikes not be allowed. I think this is a good thing for the city of Toronto.

That's an overly simplistic explanation of the purposes of colonialism. There were many purposes/pressures from several different sectors within different European imperial countries, including the private profit sector, public sector, and religious sector. It all doesn't start and end with monarchies and governments, or economics.

I think what we're seeing is called "globalization", not NWO. I don't believe in mysterious global puppet masters. I believe in plain-sight companies and rich individuals, and other powerful interest groups/actors keeping a firm grip of influence on country leaders.

World knowledge is a different issue, but i'd take the bet that Americans know more about their history than Canadians do any day of the week. I'd also take the bet that Canadians know more about US history than Canadian history. Education system and media = US know more of their own, an media is a huge reason why we know so much about the US as well. I've seen a gazillion films of US historical events, don't think i've seen one feature film based around Canadian history (never saw Passchendaele, heard it wasn't that good). My grandfather was in the Canadian military, so growing up my mother moved around lot. Lived in different places in Canada and the US so experienced both school systems. She's said in the US they just drilled that history into kids from elementary school up. Not so much in Canada. The situation now is even worse.

It's inaccurate to say America is non-multicultural. Look around the entire country (New York, Florida, California etc.) and you will see Hispanics/Mexicans, Asians, Italians, Arabs/Muslims, Africans, Jews etc. freely enjoying the practice of their own cultures & religions, as well as forming their own mini-societies in places (ever been to China town?). The difference is that the US gov does not have the official "multicultural" policies like Canada and much of Europe does. Everyone is encouraged to be, above all, an American, and be part of "American" culture. Not so much true in Canada. We have let Canadian culture and our sense of history rot away for reasons including "not offending" other cultures. Which is horse-poop. The "melting pot" way is much better, the US got that one right for sure. While their patriotism sometimes turns into hyper-nationalism and arrogance, i at least admire the Americans' patriotism and pride in their own history.

But seriously, Mr. Canada if you support some kind of alternative, "non-socialist brainwashing" schooling, i say more power to you. There's nothing illegal about private schools. We are all entitled to brainwash our children into whatever political ideology we wish. yay freedom Canada!

OH MY GOD THAT's AWFUL!!!

Canada has had its role in many things, and they certainly aren't immune to my criticisms. But this thread is about Curveball and the WMD lies. If you want to start a new thread about the 1991 war, or the post-war economic sanctions (which Canada strongly supported), or anything else Canada may have been involved in please do. But what was the Canadian gov's role in carrying out the 2003 war, including the lies? If you find something substantial, i'd honestly be glad to hear it and make my gov accountable. Again, make your own thread if you wish. Beyond some mostly indirect minor involvement, including ships patrolling the Gulf, and a total of a few dozen military officers involved in exchange or working in US facilities in the M.E., the Canadian gov didn't have much involvement in the war.

Why not? Guesses often lead to being wrong, as was the Bush admin and their complete embarrassment of finding nothing. You know what happens when you assume... Yes yes their hunches had context, Iran-Iraq War, Kurds, Gulf War, scuttling UNSCOM etc., discoveries of chemical/bio post-Gulf I, Saddam’s “admissions” of bio/chem etc. etc. But what did they know in 2002/2003? Not much obviously. Saddam was like a guy with his hand in his jacket pocket pointing his finger at you pretending to have a gun. Bang! And this was a secondary (or third, fourth, fifth?) concern of the U.S. WMD's, WMD's, WMD's, this is what the majority of ramblings/writings from the neocons hammered on time and again throughout the 90’s. If you want to talk context then this is it. Yes, as you claim, 9/11 was just the excuse the Bush admin needed to invade. The “Project for a New American Century” boys pushed for unilateral regime change via US military invasion since its 1997 inception, and separately long before this, and their concern was the WMD security threat. Neoliberal "spreading democracy" came part-in-parcel but was a secondary concern. I've read many of neocon PNAC's letters/documents/articles and some of Robert Kagan's journal articles, and it's hilarious how similar it all is to the Bush admin rhetoric leading up to the 2003 war. This is of course because the Bush admin was basically PNAC headquarters with a majority of its lead members given posts in the Bush admin, which i'm sure you're aware. Equally hilarious how they disbanded the group in 2006 amidst the sham that was their Iraq War and relaunched under a new name. Most of those neocons are a bunch of well-educated idiots. They got their wish, the invasion of Iraq & regime change was inevitable once Bush won the 2000 election. They also had to lie ad nauseum to their countrymen, gov't/Congress, and the UN/other governments/the worldwide population to do it. Not to mention completely failing in their own personal WMD guesses, conducting an embarrassingly executed war in Iraq (& Afghanistan), crapping on their constitution, the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib torture b.s. etc. Simply based on their WMD guessings and the execution of the war, they were a clearly incompetent bunch. Based on your defence and apologizing for these fools and the similar language you use in your arguments, ie: regime change being “the law of the land”, I’m led to believe you had much support for their ideas/actions, and likely thumped for US-led regime change via invasion during the Clinton years. Tell me if I’m wrong. Again, show me the US law pre-Bush that call for direct military operations in Iraq with the purpose of regime change. You are trying to argue as if Bush was somehow compelled by US public law to go down the course he did. That’s nonsense. You continually cite the Iraq Liberation Act as context for Bush. This was a law that called for support of regime change via US support of Iraqi democratic opposition parties, but Sec.8 specifically stated that the Act did not authorize use of US Armed Forces (except to provide the opposition groups with arms/equipment/education/training). Clinton did next to nothing to implement the act, Bush didn`t go down this road either. Clinton kept with the containment policy, which was obviously working. Bush went straight for invasion, which his neocon buds Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy/Libby etc. had wanted even long before the 1998 Act. Anyone knows the US-Saddam/Iraq situation has roots that go back many decades (including the 1963 US-backed coup that brought the Ba'athists to power), but the war was all the Bush admin's.

If this happens i'm changing my name to "None Of The Above".