segnosaur

Its nice to see Wayward Son bringing some science into the discussion here. (I'd normally do that myself, but I don't always have the time.) The problem is, nobody is disputing that the number of vaccines given has increased. Your earlier post said that they had taken things "too far". Wayward Son was looking for actual evidence that there's actually been harm, not just vague feelings that "we're doing more and I think its risky". Please define "High Amount" of aluminum, and show that that amount of Aluminum is actually causing harm. A couple of things to keep in mind: - From what I understand, the reason that previous cases of Seasonal flus weren't labeled "pandemics" is because the WHO actually changed its definition for the term a couple of years ago. Had they been using the "new" definition, some of those other outbreaks would likewise be labelled a "pandemic". - Yes, you are right in that fewer people died as a result of H1N1. However, H1N1 was a bit different than previous cases of the flu... whereas in the past influenza primarily affected the elderly, H1N1 tended to affect children more. Now, I know you can't really put a "price" on a life. However, most people would consider it somehow sadder when (for example) a baby dies, compared to a senior citizen who has already lived a full, rich life. When you're talking about drug and vaccine manufacturers, you are talking about multi-billion dollar industries. However, those figures have to be put into context. Vaccines actually make up a fairly small part of drug company sales ($6 billion/year for vaccines, $340 billion/year for drugs, according to the last figures I've seen.) Furthermore, the influenza vaccine has a lot of problems from an economics point of view... companies don't know how popular vaccinations will be in any given year, and unlike many drugs/vaccines, the changes in virus frequencies mean this year's vaccine will be worthless next year. (In the past companies have ended up throwing out huge amounts of vaccine at the end of the flu season.) Things were so bad at one point that there was only 2 manufacturers for the influenza vaccine in the middle of the last decade. Now, things have changes in the past couple of years... there are a few more manufacturers, etc. Still, its not exactly the cash cow that many people think. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38776-2004Oct16.html Please, give us some of these doctors that have done 'great research'... More importantly, give me some of the published papers that they've done on the subject. Actually, yes you can discount "anecdotal evidence". The human body is complex. Our experiences are complex. Whether we feel better because drugs/vaccines helped us or because of "dumb luck" can only be determined by actually looking at a proper double blind study. Do you think smoking is dangerous? What if I told you that the oldest Canadian who ever lived was a smoker? Does that mean smoking is actually safe, or could it be that this individual also had other health factors that minimized the impact of smoking? This reminds me of a 'Family Guy' quote... A guy at work bought a car out of the paper once. Ten years later, BAM. Herpes. - Peter Griffin Assuming you're not just B.S.ing... Were the vaccines the only think they had taken in the past (for example) months? No food? No drinks? Did they sit inside an empty room, not going outside, not going to work, not doing anything that might have exposed them to outside contamanents? Keep in mind that in most cases "mainstream medicine" has looked into these topics. And there results tend to that there's little or no risk. Secondly, keep in mind that not everything deserves "balance". If I tell you that humans evolved over millions of years from other life forms, and you tell me that humans were placed here by aliens, the fact that you're providing an "alternative viewpoint" doesn't necessarily mean your viewpoint is worth discussing (especially in a scientific forum). Similarly, if the results of dozens of studies and the opinion of hundreds of epidemiologists is that vaccines are safe/effective, that doesn't mean that an uninformed viewpoint of "vaccine dangers" from someone trying to sell "natural cures" is worth discussing either.

You know the fact that "different methods" are used in assassination does not mean that every suggested method of assassination will actually work. Wow... just totally... wow. Just out of curiosity, did you actually read through the rest of that link? That particular article also suggests that the U.S. military was the origin of HIV/AIDS (hint: it wasn't. It was a mutation of the Simian Immunodeficiency virus) and H1N1 (hint: it wasn't.) Did it ever occur to you that a source that includes such conspiracy theory nonsense probably isn't the best source of information? Furthermore, the individual who supposedly "gave cancer" to a bunch of people (Cornelius Rhoads)? From: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/Fulltext/2003/09100/The_Rhoads_Not_Given__The_Tainting_of_the.7.aspx ...there was no evidence that Rhoads killed patients or transplanted cancer cells.... Furthermore, a quick look at wikipedia finds a bit more information about your source: ...the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized it for promoting bigoted and extremist viewpoints. According to the ADL, VT's articles are reposted widely on the Internet, primarily on conspiracy-oriented and right-wing extremist websites And then there is the fact that they've published holocaust-denial articles. Oh, and one of their editors openly hangs out with neo-nazi groups. (See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/) So, nice source of information you picked there. Is it really necessary to go to sites that publish bigotry and conspiracy nonsense in your support of Chavez? Of course, the fact that you would spend your time hanging out on websites like "Veterans Today" would certainly explain a lot of your viewpoints...

Could be that he was a well-intentioned individual who just didn't know enough to set a path for his country that would better ensure a long term future. Could be that he was a megalomaniac and felt that his best way to "leave is mark" was to make it seem like he was pitting his little country against "evil oil companies" and the "great Satanic U.S.". Or maybe it was a combination of the 2. Or was that a rhretorical question? What exactly was your point in listing all those countries? The U.S. has had pretty friendly (and mutually beneficial) relations with Canada and Mexico. Can't find anything they've done to mess up Azerbaijan. Yeah, they might be supporting a rather despotic regime in Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean the U.S. is interfering in their internal affairs. Its almost like you're picking countries at random. Is that what you're doing, picking countries at random? Here's a suggestion... if you're going to quote a source, try not to refer to ones that toss around the word "imperialist". Makes someone look like a rabid nutcase.

Well, there have been approximately 2 dozen F-35s delivered by Lochheed Martin so far, including both the A- and B- Variants, and includes planes shipped to both the U.S. and the U.K. Furthermore, the "production line" appears to now be operating at full speed. So yes, I'm sure that the F-35 will be available. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-12-21/us-air-force-declares-f-35-wing-ready-train Now, that doesn't mean there won't be some delays. And there are technical problems that still have to be dealt with... But I don't think anyone can ever claim "These will never be available". For better or worse, the project is just too far along for them to just give up.

Based on history, it is reasonable to think that U.S. could be behind assassinating and killing the undesired Latin American leader. One of the reasons there have been so many attempts on his life is that he has been in power for so long. Attempts to kill Castro began almost immediately after the 1959 revolution The fact that the U.S. may have wanted Chavez gone doesn't necessarily make it possible that they'd have the ability to assassinate him, especially by giving him cancer via some secret weapon. Seriously, assassination by cancer seems so impractical and far fetched it seems amazing that anyone would be gullible enough to believe it. Its rather similar to arguing with a 9/11 Truther, where they have to make up all new branches of science to justify their bizarre beliefs. The fact is, in the U.S. Cancer is actually the leading cause of death in the U.S. for men in their 50s (i.e. Chavez's age). I assume Venezuelan statistics are similar. So, using Occam's razor, what makes more sense: - That the U.S. has some sort of secret weapon that can give someone cancer, even though cancer is remarkably unpredictable and Chavez would probably have pretty consistent security Or: - That he came down with a disease which is already probably the leading cause of death for people in his age range

Our current fleet of Hornets has already gone avionics upgrades, so we don't need to actually replace them now. We will have to replace them in a few years (when the airframes will start to wear out), so we need to start the process of replacing them (even if we won't need delivery of new planes for a little while.) Not sure of all the details, but there may be more differences than you'd expect. The Super Hornet isn't just a newer model of our existing CF-18 hornet. Instead, when the U.S. navy needed a new plane they decided to basically build a new plane but keep the F-18 name for political purposes. The design of the planes is similar (and many of the maintenance procedures will be the same), but there are differences... - Different engines (GE-F404 in the CF-18, GE-F414 in the Superhornet) - More hard points to carry weapons on the Superhornet - Some differences in avionics Yes they are. The question is, will the be available long term? Since there are only 2 users of the Super Hornet (and potentially dozens of users of the F35) its possible that the availability of spare parts will be an issue 3 decades from now. I'm not necessarily against the Super Hornet.... I think it might be a viable replacement for our current fleet of planes. But its not necessarily a slam-dunk. Advantages: - Its a "known quantity"; i.e. less chance of surprise problems - more speed/range - Lower cost Disadvantages: - No stealth - Lower service ceiling - Less chance for Canada to negotiate local industrial side-benefits - Fewer users might make future maintenance more expensive - Lower maximum takeoff weight

Here's another reason to get vaccinated.... it actually makes you less racist! Sounds strange, but that's what a study by scientists at Harvard, MIT and the U. of T. found. They took 2 populations (one vaccinated, the other not) and gave them surveys asking how they felt about things like immigration, the obese, etc. What they found is that people in the vaccinated group were more accepting of others that were different. Here's the logic behind it: Thousands of years ago, human civilizations were a lot more isolated. As a result, it was possible for citizens to get used to certain diseases in their own town, but have no immunity to the diseases that exist in the next village over. As a result, people became naturally distrustful of others, less someone from that other town sneeze and end up wiping out your population as a result. By extension, this includes people who look different. When you get vaccinated, you are less likely to be concerned about diseases. As a result, you become more tolerant of people who are of different races. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/12/05/study-vaccines-hand-washing-can-reduce-prejudice-against-immigrants-the-obese-crack-addicts/#.UNvRG2_qgus http://www.cracked.com/article_20263_5-scientific-ways-to-trick-yourself-into-being-good-person.html

Cancer isn't exactly the most predictable disease. (Not like a toxic chemical or bacterial infection). It can take years to develop (assuming the body doesn't fight it off.) And Chavez (plus a whole host of leaders that Chavez was claiming were affected) would have to be given the carcinogen without their knowledge. (You'd assume he'd notice someone coming at him with a needle.) So yeah, it would require a 'secret' weapon for the Americans to give him cancer.

Ummm... those "students" will eventually become taxpayers. Whether they pay for their education now or in 10 years doesn't change the fact that they still pay. You are of course assuming that education=smart people. While there is some correalation, I've met a lot of very smart people who never had post-secondary education, and some very stupid people who got degrees. Here are some of the problems with your suggestion: - You are assuming that educating more people is necessary. Yes, there are needs for people with certain skills. But having everyone get a university/college degree won't necessarily mean that everyone gets a great job. - How exactly are you going to guarantee that you get everyone to contribute to your "fund" after they graduate? Some will move to another country. Some will end up getting a degree which is worthless, and end up working at the same minimum wage job they would have had otherwise. - Who's going to track all these fund contributions? Sounds like you're going to need yet more bureaucracy to track payments, etc. - You suggested graduates pay 1% of their income into this fund (I assume it would be for life). Is that necessarily fair? After all, a person can be smart and earn more their their peers and end up paying more not because of their education but because of their natural abilities. The fact is, Canada has a pretty well educated population. I'd have to go back and check, but I think we have around as high a proportion of post-secondary graduates as countries like Sweden (where tuition is "free" for citizens). So obviously our system works well enough to produce a decent crop of graduates without changing the funding setup.

There are a couple of issues here: - You're assuming that students at that age are able to determine what they want to do for the rest of their lives. (I know when I was in high school, I wanted go go into Astronomy, then medicine, then genetics, finally settling on Computers at the end. Had my high-school dedicated my courses to only those that would help me in my later University degree, I probably would have ended up a pretty rotten astronomer/doctor. - The world is a pretty complex place, with lots of interconnections. Nobody can be an expert in everything, but I do think there's some value in a broader educational base. You may think its silly for someone interested in a B.A. to bother with science, but don't you think some knowledge of science would eventually help them if they have to (for example) talk to their doctor? Or if they want to be an electrician, it still might benefit them to know something about economics, for no other reason than it would help them become a more informed voter.

Well, when you are hated by the US which has a long, dark history of putting in puppets and getting rid of leaders who don't bow down to them... You might be a little paranoid too. Some people might say that there is a difference between a reasonable concern regarding the influence of the U.S. (e.g. funding groups seeking to overthrow the government), and batshit crazy accusations of secret "cancer causing weapons" or magic death rays that he claims caused him cancer.

A couple of things need to be kept in mind: - A little bit of context is important. Remember that many of the worst instances where the US has interfered in internal politics was during the cold war. In those situations, both the U.S. and Russia were attempting to influence countries and change governments. In some cases, had the U.S. not gotten involved, the country would end up as a left wing (rather than right wing) dictatorship. Not necessarily any better (or worse) off.... just different allies - Some of the examples you've given don't really seem relevant... * Saddam was a dictator. The country is now a democracy. (Flawed, but better than it had been.) There are valid criticisms about the reasons for war and for the costs, but I doubt anyone would really think an average person was better off under Saddam than under the current government * The Tunasian revolution wasn't really one foremented by the U.S.; from all appearances it seems to been a case of a true "revolution of the people". * Like Saddam, Gadaffi and Mubarek were both dictators. (We hope stable democracies will now result in those cases, but its too early to tell.) And while the U.S. may have supported the overthrows of those leaders (well, more Gadaffi than Mubarek), there was also a lot of popular protests in the countries themselves, as well as support from other countries Again, not saying that the U.S. was a perfect angel... but events have to be put into context.

By investment and expertise, do you mean dumping oil extraction remnants directly into 3rd world countries water supplies just because it's cheaper? No, by "investment and expertise" I mean having geologists who know on where to drill, engineers who know how to construct wells, and people with enough financial backing that they can afford to construct the wells and other infrastructure, and wait for whatever infrastructure they build to actually produce a return on investment. Or do you think that they can just send a bunch of non-experts into the wilderness with a bunch of shovels and they'll come out with a bunch of oil tomorrow? Ok, lets get a few things straight: First of all, I've already admitted that oil companies are flawed. Heck, the BP oil spill shows that its not just 3rd world countries that can get screwed over... Even the U.S. can. The fact that you would turn around and harp on the flaws of the oil companies even after I've admitted there are problems shows a lack of ability to reason. Secondly, keep in mind that while you might be right to criticize the greedy oil companies, keep in mind that things aren't always better when the government gets involved. Dozens of people were killed in a refinery explosion in Venezuela back in 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/27/venezuela-oil-refinery-explosion-chavez), long after Chavez had gotten into power. Then there was this: ...an extensive oil spill has fouled a stretch of shoreline and blackened pink flamingos and other wildlife in a nature preserve in Curacao... the spill of crude oil at Curacao’s Jan Kok preserve was from at least one storage tank owned by the Isla oil refinery...The refinery is run by the state-owned oil company of Venezuela. (From: http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/news/curacao_news/610216.html) So, at least 2 big disasters (there were others by the way, those were just the 2 I found), killing people and polluting the environment... and guess what? The "Big Greedy western oil companies" weren't running the show. The moral of the story is? People screw up. They make mistakes, they get lazy and they cut corners. And that happens regardless if their pay check comes from a private company or the government. (And while it may seem like greed provides more incentive for private companies to take environmental risks, they are also subject to market forces, and would also seek to avoid bad publicity. Frankly, if you ever want to wonder why the world is so screwed up, try going back and looking at your post. You see, I tried to approach things from a realistic perspective... there are problems with the oil companies, but there are problems with running around nationalizing everything in sight. Your response was to jump in with a pretty pointless post to once again attempt to chant "oil companies bad!" without any real thought or logic behind it. So tell me, you are complaining about how the population doesn't "reap any rewards" when foreign oil companies get involved. Just how well do you think the Venezuela population will do when their revenues drop even more thanks to a lack of investment in their oil fields? Do you think their "rewards" will be all that great when they're sitting on oil deposits but can't get them out of the ground?

According to Vision, it's "Canada's largest provider of Christian programming in ten million Canadian homes;" that's the claim being made at the 2013 National Religious Broadcasters Convention* in Nashville this week. The other poster admitted that most of the programming on the channel is oriented towards christianity. However, a quick look at their schedule shows they also have programs like "The great night of Shiva" (which I assume is Hindu), "Reflections on Islam" (for Muslims), and "Murder She Wrote" (for worshipers of Angela Landsbury). So, I guess whether having >90% "Christian" programming and 10% "non-Christian" classifies you as christian or interfaith is the question.

From Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy) ...the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. ,,, ...packed Supreme Court ceased to function as a check on presidential power. Its justices have openly rejected the principle of separation of powers and pledged their commitment to advancing Chávez’s political agenda. ... Under Chávez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country’s broadcast and news media. It passed laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that “offends” government officials,,,In response to negative coverage, Chávez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses. So yes, he was "democratically elected". However, its a bit easier to maintain high voter support when you can minimize criticism in the media. And it should also be noted that one of the hallmarks of western democracy is that, while the will of the majority is respected, that individual rights still exist and cannot be over-ridden just because the "majority" wants it. Yes it did. However, you need to keep a few things in mind: - Living standards in many Latin American countries have also improved in the same time frame - Chavez had the benefit of a sharp increase in oil prices (due to factors like economic expansion in China/India, the Iraq war, etc.) Kind of easy to help the poor when you have huge revenue increases - As I pointed out earlier, while he's spending all this money to help the poor and increase the standard of living, oil production has fell. Until now it hasn't mattered much (since as I pointed out, prices have greatly increased over the past decade.) However, eventually that might catch up with them, and they may see spending on the poor (as well as their standard of living) flatten out or even fall. - There have been significant economic problems, including food shortages (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/14/venezuela.international) and the highest inflation rate in Latin America (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHxYtdd_ujHU&refer=latin_america) Instead of comparing Venezuela with the way it was before Chavez, you should instead be comparing it to the way it should be, had they had a leader that was better able to balance business and social programs. Perhaps we're looking at, you know, the facts.

From looking at the link you provided, technically they aren't "removing them from basic cable". They are giving cable companies the option to remove them. Your local cable company may decide to keep them on basic cable if they're popular enough, but don't have to if they don't want. Frankly, any "religious" cable channel that gives air time to someone like Peter Popoff should never ever be given any sort of special consideration. (In case you didn't know, Popoff is a televangalist who was caught using a radio to get information from his wife when he was supposed to be getting signals "from god". It was a widely-known scandal. The fact that Vision TV would give him a platform after all that is rather... distasteful.)

I recognize that oil companies are not exactly selfless heroes. (In fact they can do some downright dirty things.) But the situation is a bit more complex, and suggesting that there is some sort of greedy 'corporatocracy' that is going to steel Venezuala's oil money isn't exactly a fair assessment of the situation. The fact is, oil production requires a certain amount of investment and expertise. When you run around nationalizing oil companies, you don't get as many corporations eager to risk drilling new wells, building infrastructure, etc., lest they find their new investments nationalized as well. And when the government decides to spend more of their oil revenue helping the poor (an understandable goal) rather than putting enough aside to improve its production, you can run into problems in the future. (It ends up being a case of "short term gain for long term pain".) In fact, that seems to be what has happened in Venezuela... Oil production has fallen from ~3 million barrels/day to ~1.7 million barrels per day in roughly a decade (See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/03/06/business-chavez-oil.html). When companies like Exxon leave, it may seem like you're getting rid of the "evil big-oil companies", but if they're the only ones who were willing to drill new wells, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean I think the oil companies should be given free reign to do whatever they want... I just think there's a happy medium that Chavez was unable or unwilling to find.

I wouldn't necessarily label him a "socialist". (Of course, technically it does depend on your definition of the word. In historical terms "socialist" implies people that want complete government economic control, although the term is often tossed around to imply someone who favors more government spending/social programs.) Yes, he did bring in "Obamacare", but the plan still involves a lot of private insurance providers. Yes, spending is high, but then Bush also brought in certain spending measures for stimulus. Yes, he does want to increase taxes on the "wealthy", but I do think its a far cry between that and complete government economic control.

Why exactly is this worth posting about? The book wasn't written by leaders in the conservative party. There was nothing in the article that suggests Harper and company actually believe that there's a "right wing shift".

This individual was not just some low level volunteer going around knocking on doors, etc. He was the HEAD of one of the European branches. Yet someone with that much authority managed to get to the head of the organization despite holding such views. Doesn't really say much for their vetting of individuals working for them does it. Irrelevant. The individual quoted labeled Israel as "scum". He was a leader in the movement. The fact that the organization has issued reports on North Korea doesn't mean that the individual in question (as well as others that would let him gain power) doesn't hold an anti-Israel bias. In case you didn't know, the initial claim in Jenin was that "Hundreds/Thousands" were dead. (That was the basis for the "Massacre" label). That's what organizations like Amnesty International were claiming during the event itself. Turns out they were wrong. Which goes to show even your vaunted human rights organizations can make mistakes and falsely criticize Israel So, an organization is defending itself. Wow. Who'd ever guess that an organization that was criticized would ever in a million years try to put a positive spin on itself? It just boggles the mind! Wow, just totally... wow. It always astounds me the amount of mental and ethical gymnasics people like you go through in order to justify your hypocrisy. You DO realize that this person, who's job it is to look after prisoners, is still a member of the Palestinian government? You do know who they are, right? The ones who are primarily in opposition to the Israelis? Are you assuming each and every member of the Palestinian governement is 100% honest when it issues any statement regarding the conflict? Do you think that being a member of the government makes him more honest than a "lobbyist"?

and, to degrees, attempts toward more comprehensive studies, factoring externalities, have been done. I've presented a few in the past. I have never seen one (at least one that does a complete job of factoring in such exterrnalities. Perhaps they exist (since I can't prove a negative) but I've never seen them. Umm... the fact that people paid for the grid itself is a subsidy. Yes, people voluntarily (I assume) coughed up the money themselves, but it was still money that was coming from a source other than on the sale of electricity itself. Well, given the fact that the original post in thread seemed to argue how this town was a trendsetter, then it certainly makes sense to discuss the entire situation, including any factors (subsidies, their environment/economy, situations that make this community unique, etc.) that would make it impossible to replicate their success elsewhere. If they can make a go of it, find... more power to them. But not everyone will have the same combination of factors that makes their situation possible. First of all, not sure exactly what you're saying... looking back through the posts, you weren't the one who brought up subsidies per kwh... back in post 52 you were talking only about total subsidies... it was Bonham who first brought up the fact that we should be looking at subsidies per unit of energy. Secondly, I read as much here as I can, but I do not have infinite time. So I pick and choose those that are of interest. hand-wave??? Pointing out the fact... the most obvious fact, that fossil-fuels are mature/established is not "hand-waving". No, what is hand-waving is your assumption that it actually matters. Wind power has been in use for electrical generation for over a century. Solar power has been used for decades. I am quite aware of the trends in solar/wind power. Yes, I recognize that solar panels are improving in efficiency and dropping in cost. Yes, I know there are new technologies (such as Molten Salt) which will allow solar to provide power at night/when cloudy. But that doesn't mean it should be the government stepping in to pay for actual implementation. I do think the government has a role in energy research... they should be investing in technologies that might have promise but are further down the road and riskier (such that businesses won't invest in them themselves) - Nuclear fusion, oil-from-algae/bacteria, etc. Yes, I would like fossil fuel subsidies to be abolished. Heck, I'd even consider things like a carbon tax, if it could actually be handled properly. The fact that one form of energy (fossil fuel) gets an unfair subsidy does not mean that other forms of energy (solar/wind) should get an even greater subsidy (per unit of energy). no - the applicable article reference suggests it's entirely economics... or do you have other motives you'd like to assign towards the... bankers? If a banker is making a purely economic decision, they will look at factors like the chance of defaulting on the loan, the amortization period, etc. If they are charging more because investing in fossil fuel plans looks bad, they end up basing their decisions at least partly on ethical grounds rather than economics. The original article was talking about a town in germany, a rural location where their switch to renewables was subsidized (either from grants to build their biogas plants, or from townspeople doing their own donations/subsidizations). There will be cases where renewables are cheaper. There will be situations where they are more expensive. However, even if all subsidies were removed from Fossil fuels, you'd still probably find that in most cases renewables can't compete yet. No, perhaps you should actually accept that what's important is not the total amount of the subsidies, but the subsidies per unit of power.

"‘Israel is a scum state." - Frank Johansson, (High-ranking member of AI in europe.) When asked about whether he felt the same way about other states, he didn't name any. (See: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=185846) So what does that say about the quality of thought by AI if one of its leaders condemns Israel like that, yet fails to condemn (for example) North Korea? Also, recall roughly 10 years ago... Israel was accused of a "Massacre" in the city of Jenin... (From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm) "...the Amnesty investigation has only just begun but Palestinian claims of a massacre were gaining foundation.". What was eventually found? No Massacre. The number of dead was around 55. So, the people of Amnesty International is certainly capable of making mistakes. Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective". - Robert Bernstein (Founder of Human Rights Watch and chairman for ~2 decades) So what does it say about the quality of evidence from a group like Human Rights Watch if the FOUNDER (i.e. the guy who actually started the organization and probably has a good handle on the concept of "human rights") has turned around and started criticizing them? Earlier I pointed out that in another thread, you were using a member of the Palestinian government as a reference. Once again, I ask... do you consider yourself to be a hypocrite by condemning someone for referencing an Israeli lobbyist while you yourself referenced a member of the Palestinian government (and thus someone who is just as likely to be biased.)

How is distorting history not dangerous? When I hear the term 'dangerous' I assume it means that there is a risk of actual harm. Yes, its unfortunate that some people will get a distorted view of what happened. (Again, that's assuming that people actually remember the incorrect details.) But the incident occurred several decades ago, and isn't something that's directly relevant to current events. I can't see (for example) Canada declaring war with the U.S. over the issue, nor international relations changing over incorrect depictions of the events. Furthermore, anyone who's view of events was changed from the depictions given in the movie wasn't likely to be involved in political science and/or historian anyways. So yes, some people's knowledge of the events was distorted, but the ultimate 'harm' would likely be minimal. Well, I guess the issue is the use of the phrase based on a true story, the key part is the term "based on". If you've ever seen the movie "Changeling" (about a woman in the 20s who's child goes missing, and the cops return the wrong child but nobody believes her) they actually use "the true story" (not just "based on"), because the writer took a lot more effort to get the details just right. (The writer actually included newspaper clippings from the time with the script to show just how real the story was. So, lets take a look at what the story got right: - The Iranian embassy was overrun (and the movie did point out there was American interference in Iranian politics previously) - 6 Americans did hide out with Canadians - A plot was hatched to get them out by posing as a film crew (complete with scripts, storyboard drawings, etc.) - The CIA did have involvement in getting the people out - The extraction was successful - I should also add that I think it did a successful job at portraying the emotions and political situation at the time To many people, that's close enough to be given the label "based on a true story" (as opposed to the label "THE true story") Lets take a look at some of the things the movie got wrong: - Fake events added (to add drama/tension) - Less credit given to the Canadians (as well as workers for embassies at other countries) - The details of the lives of the Canadians when in hiding was altered Have you ever seen the movie "The Blind Side" (based on the true story of a white family that adopts an African-American teenager, who then goes on to play football.) The real Michael Oher complained about how he was depicted not knowing football before he was taken in (in fact he had already played football before); but his adoptive parents basically told him "suck it up... sometimes the story is more important than the details" (to paraphrase).

In another thread you used a reference which included quotes from several members of the Palestinian government. Do you consider yourself a hypocrite for condemning one poster for quoting a "lobbyist" while simultaneously quoting people who were just as biased?

Just wondering... could you give me a time frame where Palestinian attacks (including rocket/morter attacks, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and the use of things like Molotov cocktails) has stopped for a significant amount of time (for example, a minimum of 3 months)?