Moonlight Graham

If Palin gets the nomination it only shows how stupid some people are for voting her as the nominee. McCain was very informed. She is completely clueless about how the world works, and anyone who would want her as President of the U.S. is equally clueless.

Why are you talking about global cooling? Who the hell thinks its cooling? Its been warming over the past century generally, with a cool dip after WWII, then warming again. Who would deny it? Based on our best evidence of temp records thems the facts.

Of course climate change exists. Climate has gone from cold to warm and back again constantly for many millions of years. The IPCC can shove it, they are politically motivated. I'd rather listen to the many thousands of other scientist not involved in that select group. Not talking about skeptics, but all scientists who deal in rationality, not ideology. Again, the question is whether global warming is caused by humans or if its currently mostly a natural warming. If its human, we need to fix it, if its natural then we can't fix it no more than we can change the weather, but must adapt (which is a huge costly problem we must deal with as well).

agreed. It's freaking science! Any good scientist worth their weight in marbles should always be "skeptical" and constantly keep an open mind to new information or evidence.

Patriots aren't fanatics. Patriots who will follow their country and government no matter what are fanatics, but thats not what partiotism means. People who love their country aren't fanatics. As to the opening post. I disagree. nationalism doesn't necessarily mean a moral superiority over all other nations, it just mean you feel a strong connection to a group of people with similar interests. Definitions of nationalism: 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism 2. loyalty or devotion to one's country; patriotism 3. exaggerated, passionate, or fanatical devotion to a national community See also chauvinism Definitions of nation: na·tion (nshn) n. 1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc., organized into a single state the Australian nation 2. (Sociology) a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc. the French-Canadian nation There's nothing really about moral superiority in any of this.

Guess what? President's don't memorize the vast majority of their speeches. Guess what also? they don't even write them either. When was the last time a President wrote and memorized their own speech that was more than 5 minutes long?

The earth has warmed in the last 200 years. But it hasn't warmed at a temp or rate that hasn't happened many, many, many times in the past. It's not even the warmest that its been in the last 1000 years. Generally, the earth seems to be warming the last 2 centuries. But the question is if this warming caused primarily by humans? CO2 levels have been steadily rising the past 8 years yet global temp has remained the steady in these past 8 years.

Because they are metal. What about explosives with no metal?

teleprompters and cheat notes? who cares, there are way more relevant things to talk about than this inconsequential crap.

Tree rings are a very inadequate proxy for measuring past temperatures of any kind, whether it be local, global, etc. This is because there are many reasons that determine how much a tree will grow during any given year. Warm temperatures will make a tree grow more, but if the temp is too hot it will actually stunt the growth of some types of trees. One large determination of tree growth and the size of tree rings is the amount of precipitation in a given year, as obviously if its too dry a tree won't grow well, and lots of precipitation will make a tree grow more, but if there's too much precipitation it may stunt its growth. Also, a tree will grow more if the tree next to it (that previously provided shade) falls down or is chopped down and the remaining tree is therefore exposed to more sunlight. All of this is fairly logical. If you have a fat tree ring compared to other rings in the tree, the only thing you can conclude is that tree-growing conditions for that year in that local area were very good. Its impossible to know if it was warm temperature or lots of precipitation etc. that caused the good conditions, unless you use other proxies as well to confirm it, but even then its not certain.

A gazillion laws regarding Aboriginals. ie: land claims, many influenced/decided by plebiscites. Ie: the Nunavut Act and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

You are right. For eg: That's one of the reasons Canada or the U.S. doesn't have direct democracy in all decisions - our populations are much too big for it to be practically possible to have a referendum on every single issue of the day. Beyond that, the average working person doesn't have the time to stay accurately informed on every single issue, reading all bills etc. Therefore, we elect representatives. But, i think most people living in democratic countries would agree that we should have as much democracy in the system as is practically possible. At least that's my opinion. Vast sums of money donated to parties with "catches" attached IMO compromise the entire goal of the 1 person 1 vote system. I suppose. However, many Americans agree with me as seen during the State of the Union speech where both parties of congress stood when Obama condemned the Supreme Court decision.

I've said the U.S. electoral system & the democracy of the U.S. itself is corrupted by vast amounts of money, which won't be helped by more corporate cash flow. To think otherwise is foolish.

No, these are the consequences of a-hole (and homophobe) men breaking the law, and at some point they need to be held responsible for their actions. Though i don't believe in women on the battlefield, unless they can show they are physically capable of keeping up with the men.

Free speech laws in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms say i can lecture whomever i want. Both systems have flaws, i criticize both of them.

You're right. But its f'ed. Free speech > democracy? 1 person 1 vote my arse. Enjoy the plutocracy. p.s. Canada.

Amen brother. There's a lot of crap being spread around, by both sides of the debate. It's sickening! The worst is, it makes it damn hard for the non-scientist to try and understand this problem. Even fervent research by the average joe on this issue is frustrating and confusing.

Despite a few lies and spins, i thought it was a damn fine speech. One of his better ones. With the economy, i think he tried to fix the macro problems last year, and effectively prevented a likely disaster. He could have done better with more of the stimulus kicking in in 2009. But he finally seems to be getting on the ball with domestic economic issues. What i liked about speech: - surprised to see all the policy announcements. Was kind of refreshing to hear so much actual substance in a State of the Union address, rather than mostly trying to sell a message or going on about values and hear-warming stories blah blah that he and most politicians go on about (though he of course did have his share of that in this speech too) - His end was so strong. For about 2 minutes, i think he was actually being heartfelt and honest when he was talking about politicians doing what is best for the people and not just to get re-elected or get TV time or make decisions just for spite and partisanship. I have rarely heard such an honest message from a President, and you could hear a pin-drop when he was saying it. - watching the Joint Chiefs sit stone-walled when Obama announced the gays in the military thing was hilarious. No matter your stance on the issue, it was funny. Dislikes: - Obama goes on about 8 years of crappy policies that led to the current mess he's in. "Just stating the facts!", then minutes later is calling Congress to stop harping on the past and to be non-partisan. That got a chuckle from the GOP's too. WTF hypocrit. - Nothing about Gitmo. Ya guess u dont wanna touch that one numbnuts. OOPS! - Says about healthcare to GOP's "look at our proposal again! It's good!" (paraphrase), then a minute later is taking about working out a bipartisan plan. wtf - Spending freeze? Keynesian economics 101 says spend in a recession, pay back debt in the good times. Dunno, maybe he thinks the stimulus is enough spending

discuss!

well, i guess you have a magic crystal ball i don't know about. Any scientist would never make a 100% prediction on something like that. Even Vegas wouldn't make odds 100% on that. Probability dude.

30% have been raped??? Jesus Christ that's epidemic. I can't believe that. Though 90% say sexual harassment? i would have predicted like 98%.

"it should not take a natural disaster to turn our attention to the less fortunate." I agree with this 100%. Bravo Harper, now i hope he just follows up on it. This quote coming from a guy who refuses to meet the 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid that has been an internationally agreed threshold for decades. Hope he's changed his tune.

Argus, no link for the opening post?

I understand you're point. However, these are all "best picture" nominations. Life is Beautiful and Shakespeare in Love weren't nominated only because they were funny. They were overall excellent films with an artistic merit. Silence of the Lambs won, and it should have since it's a brilliant film and Hopkins is incredible in that flick, but i would call that film a psychological thriller rather than a straight horror film. I mean, my mom would watch that film. She wouldn't sit through the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. At least they gave props to Jaws. My point: the academy should consider having a separate categories for some genre films. The only problem with that is that it may open a can of worms since there are so many genres, and you have to categories movies into genres. I just think they should at least have a category for Best Comedy (as the Golden Globes does - 'Best Comedy or Musical', and the Emmy's as well). But even then the snotty Academy would likely favour comedies based on their "an artistic merit" rather than which one was actually funnier and made them laugh more.

But it's still a movie. The Oscars only focus on films that "move us deeply" or "inspire us" etc. Those movies are great, but what about films that focus on the ability to make us laugh? Shouldn't they be rewarded also? And what about other genres of film the stir different emotions? The poster about mentioned horror films ie: the ability to frighten/scare? I find it funny how the Oscars are always hosted by a comedian (usually a film actor in comedies) who tries to make the audience laugh throughout the show...and yet none of that hosts' films will ever be rewarded by the Oscars for making the same people laugh via film. That's stupid!