segnosaur

Ummmm... why? The protesters did not win any sort of federal election. They hold no 'official' status. There is also no overall formal 'umbrella' organization that all protesters fall under. So why should they be accorded the right to speak at the G8/G20 talks? If someone has concerns, they can speak their mind by supporting candidates that share the same views during elections, by writing letters to their local newspaper, by putting up web pages on the internet. I'm also not opposed to peaceful protests. But since they haven't got enough support to actually form the government, they don't have the political right to speak at the meetings. (And there's no guarantee that allowing them to do so would placate the more radical members of their group anyways.)

How can you say that? The U.N. gave a job to Awad al-Qiq, a respected Palestinian educator! Of course, al-Qig also spent his free time building rockets to fire at Israeli schools and other civilians, but he was an employed terrorist gosh darn it! Shouldn't that count for something? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05686115

Right...typically DU is not used for small arms munitions. However, there are special rounds in the "smaller" calibres designed to take advantage of DU's pyrophoric properties against certain targets. Interesting. I figured that because of the close proximity that might occur when using small arms that they would consider it unsuitable for rifle/machine gun bullets. Of course, is that actually in regular use, and is there any evidence that such rounds were actually used in Falluja (or anywhere else in Iraq)?

There are abandoned Iraqi tanks lying out in the open that were attacked by DU munitions. On impact they do create dust, these tanks are still highly radioactive, and they're lying out in the open to any uneducated and curious passer by who knows little to nothing of radiation to approach it out of natural curiosity. Ummm... First of all, I'm sure there are destroyed Iraqi tanks lying around. I rather suspect that those tanks are probably not in the core of the cities where the bulk of the population resides. And secondly, yes, it would be inadvisable to go poking around destroyed Iraqi tanks. But it would also be a bad idea to go poking around such tanks even if they were destroyed by more conventional munitions. Are you suggesting that there is some long lineup of people eager to jump into bombed-out Iraqi tanks? Is there any indication that all of those people suffering from birth defects have been inside a destroyed tank? Ummm... "apparently"? Have any references to show that there actually is DU in the water supply? 300 tons may sound like a lot, but as I pointed out before, Uranium is a naturally occurring element. Whatever contribution the added DU may add to the naturally occurring uranium may be statistically insignificant. For the same reason that the government advised pregnant women in Canada to avoid rain water after Chernobyl (even though there was no real risk). Its a combination of scientific ignorance, politicians wanting to be seen as 'doing something', and general panic (with only a tiny bit of reasonable concern added in). Hey, maybe there is a reason for concern. But simply showing some news report of unfortunate birth defects is not convincing if you're actually looking for scientific evidence. Actually, we still don't know if there actually is something going wrong in Iraq. We haven't yet seen any studies showing any statistical increase in birth defects or other health problems. Do you remember the movie "Erin Brockvich"? It told the supposedly true story of a woman trying to fight for the town of Hinkely in California, after their water supply was contaminated with a chromium compound. This compound was supposedly causing horrible medical problems (cancers, neurological problems, etc.) She won a large settlement. Only problem is, it was all a lie... after the settlement, they actually looked at the numbers. The average rate of illness in the town was the same as in every other town in the area that did not get exposed to the chromium. People were getting sick, but it was just the regular, every day set "back ground" illness that happens everywhere. People ended up falsely accusing the chromium but it had no statistical effect. I just hate to see bad science do the same thing here with Depleted Uranium. (edited to fix quote tags)

Ummm... where exactly is this report that shows DU was used in rifle/machine gun bullets? DU is usually used for larger munitions (e.g. shells capable of taking out tanks, or for 'bunker buster' bombs.) or for tank armor. I am unfamiliar with any use in DU for small arms ammunition. Hey, maybe it was, but I'd like to see a little evidence.

There are some 7 million Quebecers. Many of them disagree with the policies of various governments... Yes, I'm sure many do disagree with various spending policies... But they (meaning the majority of voters) keep electing governments that have left-wing policies. Why isn't the ADQ (which has conservative policies) making more headway? (Or, if there are specific problems with the ADQ, why has some other conservative/nationalist or conservative/federalist party appeared in order to capture the "right wing" votes if there are so many?) And why, in a 2007 poll, did a clear majority of Quebecers state that social programs "should be as generous as possible, even at the risk of indebting future generations." (see: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=30152692-af20-442e-aff8-faa631e249a9&p=1} That's not the attitude of a "conservative" right-wing voter base, that's a left-wing voter base. There are thousands of artists/performers/etc. all across the country. I could probably point to a lot of English language performers that Moore would probably also say "Who is that?" I am not opposed to eating food but that doesn't mean I would spend $1000 on a restaurant meal. Segnosaur, $1.2 billion (and counting) is too much. Fine, tell me, what should they cut out. Much of the cost involved security. Should they eliminate that? The fact is, as expensive as this meeting is, it seems to be the going rate for hosting these type of events. As for voting Bloc, I don't know what else I can do. I call it my "tit-for-tat" voting strategy. I will keep changing my vote (even randomly choosing parties) until a government manages to control government spending honestly. Soo... your plan is to show displeasure over a company that is spending more than you'd like, by voting for a party that wants to spend even more of your money? Don't you think that's extremely counter productive? Which, of course, doesn't mean that he doesn't understand foreign affairs or how Canada fits in to the global community. Once again, this appears to be an incorrect interpretation of Harper's statements.

Incorrect. Alpha particles are among the most deadly that there is, if ingested or inhaled. Actually, if you look at my post, I already dealt with the issue of inhalation when I pointed out that if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat. I rather suspect that the average Iraqi civilian is not going to be in a position where they are in regular contact with DU in a form that will pose a significant dander. Actually I never claimed it was harmless... There certainly are risks: as I said, inhalation of DU particles can be bad (but its not a situation that non-combatants will find themselves in). And there is the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, and as such there is a certain amount of chemical toxicity that must be dealt with. (But then, the same would be true of almost any metal used in combat.) I just don't think its the evil bogey man that it was made out to be in the opening post.

So.... you believe in letting the United Nations, an organization that: A: did not act to stop genocide in the Balkans B: contains such countries as China and Saudi Arabia on its "human rights" council c: contains a large number of members who are abusive dictatorships be an organisation that gets to dictate our "morality" when it comes to dealing with international issues.

Nope, they shouldn't. Ummm... proof by youtube video is no proof at all. Where are the scientific studies? Where are the control groups? The first video talked about some tragic cases of birth defects. But there were no numbers to back things up. Birth defects happen even in our non-war affected North American populations. Simply pointing to people with birth defects in Iraq doesn't illustrate A: whether such birth defects are actually occurring at a greater rate than 'normal' and: B: Whether such birth defects (if they are more common than they should be) actually are caused by depleted uranium (as opposed to some other cause) In fact, there have been multiple studies which have shown that depleted uranium has no long term health effects. Here is a summary of the information (published by the U.S. military): http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/index.html And just in case you don't trust the statements made because it comes from a government web site, we have a reference to the journal Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5588/1801?ck=nck They've also compared gulf war vets to non-vets, and haven't found significant problems (more than would be expected in similar populations): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569626/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16687262 So, if gulf war vets aren't getting sicker in significant numbers, its likely that DU isn't causing these health problems. Ummm... first of all, having such a long half like doesn't exactly make depleted uranium more scary, It actually makes it less scary. A long half life means that it is decaying more slowly (and thus causing less exposure to radiation.) I'd be a lot more concerned if it had a half life that was hundreds of years. Secondly, uranium is an alpha emitter. Of the various types of radiation, this is the one that's of least concern. Alpha particles don't even have the ability to penetrate the skin. (And yes, inhaling particles of DU isn't a good thing, but if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat.) edited to add: You do know that Uranium is actually very common throughout the world. Its contained in all soil and water. You have some of it in your back yard. And depleted uranium is actually less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium

Yes, but not many people, in the larger scheme, take such paranoid conspiracy theories seriously. Ummm... how about the comments by Robert Bernstien: Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. ... Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism. (From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&em) And who is Robert Bernstien? Some paranoid conspiracy believer? Some Israeli government mouthpiece? Well, actually he was one of the founders of Human Rights watch. Now, if the person who actually started HRW is the one criticizing it, people should take at least some notice.

I think the most important part of that posting was the phrase "vast majority". It may be true that most missions can be accomplished with cheaper planes. But vast majority =/= all current or future missions. Canada has gotten involved in wars in the past where their planes had to provide ground support. There's a chance they might be asked to again. If we decide to go "cheap" and buy planes that only handle what we consider to be average missions, then we'll be paining ourselves into a corner.

Umm.... what exactly does this have to do with the 'education system'? Sadly, this article doesn't have enough information to draw any sort of conclusions. However, if this is a group home for people who are mentally disabled, then the educational system would not have been able to help him. (In that case a 'group home' might have been the best option.)

Would that necessarily be any cheaper though? After all, you still need security to handle more serious threats (hate to raise the "terrorist" boogie man for example, but its still something that must be considered.) And not only that, if the meetings are held in more isolated areas it means you have to pay more for transportation to isolated areas. (And, of course, any transfer points will also need security.)

How ignorant. I fear that Harper shares your viewpoint. And this is the response you give? I pointed to Quebec's higher tax rate. (I even gave a web site allowing you to compare the income tax rate in different provinces!) I pointed to some of Quebec's spending on social programs. And guess what? Those are the traits of a "social democrat" system! Do you even know what being a "fiscal conservative" is? You're really illustrating yourself to be quite ignorant. What exactly about Quebec makes you think that its population, in any way, is oriented to the "political right"? Oh, and I notice that once again, you have ignored several issues/questions that were raised: - If you are opposed to spending on a G8/G20 meeting, do you want Canada to withdraw from all such meetings (and thus loose any influence we might have at them)? - if you really are a "fiscal conservative", why would you consider voting for the Bloc, when they are a party that wants to increase spending and increase taxes?

And once again... Quebec is traditionally a "socialist" region... with higher taxes/higher social spending. The only way he can 'get' Quebec is to basically take on socialist principles, i.e. betray his whole political philosophy. So, would you prefer Canada drop out of the G8/G20 (and accept whatever loss of international influence/recognition that comes with it)? I asked this before but you never answered... what exact expenses from G8/G20 do you have an issue with? Oh, and I notice you also haven't yet responded to the other point I made... if you really are "fiscally conservative", why did you suggest supporting the Bloc, a party that, as part of its platform in previous elections, wanted higher spending and higher taxes?

I subscribe to a more cynical view.... people are idiots. Canadians want to see a balanced budget. But they want taxes cut. They want improved health care. Unfortunately there's no way to get everything you want. People don't always see the connection between these issues. Reminds me of a Simpsons episode, where the town implements a "Bear Patrol" (complete with air patrols by stealth fighters) when their citizens demand it, but then complain when their taxes go up to pay for it.

You mean ordinary Canadians are parochial? More or less yeah. (Although that probably deals with politicians from every country.) For example, polls in 2004/2006 showed that Health care was the most important issue for Canadians, which beat out any sort of international issue. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/public-opinion/ Once again, I don't think he necessarily said he had to "learn about the world". But, there is a difference between 'knowledge' and 'experience'. He said he was "struck by" the effort surrounding the international stuff. Could simply mean that, as much as you 'know' something, its always different when you actually experience it. Of course, without actually talking to Harper directly, we can't tell exactly what he was thinking, but I certainly wouldn't get overly concerned about something that can be seen as misinterpreted wording. (Can you point to any significant blunders Harper has made?) I am terrified that Harper shares your viewpoint about Quebec. If so, this is not the federal PM I want. He may be WASP, but I didn'y think that he was stupid. Ummmm... first of all, I never claimed that it was Harper's belief that Quebec was more left wing than most of the rest of Canada, it was my own personal analysis. Secondly, not sure why exactly you'd have any doubts about that. Consider: - The sales tax rates are higher in Quebec than in the western provinces (and right behind Ontario, a province run by a center-left party) - Income taxes are higher in Quebec than in other provinces (See: http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax) - Quebec also has social programs that many other provinces lack, including subsidized day care In my opinion a society that favors higher taxes/higher spending is more left wing than a society that favors lower taxes/lower spending. Price tag. In that case, what exactly do you think that they spent money on that wasn't necessary? The 'artificial lake'? The cost of that was a lot less than initial media reports. I'm sure there were some mistakes in spending, but this is an international event, with people from all over the world. As long as its necessary to stage these meetings some money will have to be spent to handle security, transportation, etc. I'd like that too... I would have liked a party in power that would have cut the CBC, that wouldn't have bothered bailing out the car companies, etc. Obviously I didn't get that. But given a choice between a party that gives some of what I want, and a party (like the Bloc, or Liberals, or NDP) who will likely spend even more, well, I'll take the partial victory.

Ummmm... just wondering... do you recognize the contradiction of suggesting you might vote for the Bloc, and the fact that you voted for a "fiscal Conservative"? After all, in previous elections, the Bloc wanted: - Multi-billion dollar increases in social spending in Quebec - Increase taxes on oil companies - Increase spending on social housing Not to mention the fact that when the Harper government was confronted with the possibility of loosing power to a coalition, the Bloc wanted more stimulus spending. So, if you're truly a fiscal conservative, you should be avoiding the Bloc like the plague. http://www.blocquebecois.org/fichiers_public/blq-depsyntese-anglo.pdf Where exactly did he say that international maters are more important than domestic matters? He may have claimed that they take on a greater role than they did when in opposition, and that there is a certain amount of interaction between domestic matters and international, but that doesn't make international issues more important than domestic issues overall. And again, Quebec is traditionally a party that leans to the political left. As such, any conservative party will have a difficult time gaining support in the province.

The coaliton would have disintegrated because it was made up of people who,had not only just been essentially rejected by the populous,but had a seperatist element that was entirely unplatable to most people.That's the main reason why I could'nt support it. I also think it's fairly obvious,that the Liberal party was(and still is) in complete disaray and very few people within that coalition had alot of confidence in Mr.Dion,or the coaltion itself.Basically,it was a coaliton of "Anything but Harper" and that was only going to carry them so far.I don't think the Ontario situation in the '80's is applicable because there was no seperatist faction in the province,and the leader of the PC's then was a dufus named Frank Miller...Nice guy,but a clueless twit... Again,I don't think that coalition would have lasted more than 90 days tops...And Mr.Harper could have very easily won a majority in the next election based on the complete incompetence of the Lib/NDP/Traitor.He chose to run away,and then essentially give in to the demands of that coalition to keep power... You need to keep a few things in mind though... - The provinces most opposed to the Bloc probably were voting conservative anyways - Ontario seems to be a province that is willing to "play nice". As such, Ontario voters may have continued to support the Liberals even if the Liberals had previously been aligned with the Bloc - Working with the Bloc might have actually helped gain Liberal seats in Quebec, if voters thought that by aligning with the Bloc, the Liberals were more tuned in to Quebec issues (i.e. why vote for the Bloc when I can vote for the Liberals, a party that will address my issues and has more chance at power) And relying on the 'incompetence' of other leaders can be a mistake. After all, politics is risky and a politician's status can change. (Recall Duceppe and his famous "cheese hat"... however, years after that he's often seen as being the "best" leader, even in English Canada.)

I just think he's trying to point out how opposition parties tend to raise issues that they think will score points with ordinary Canadians. The NDP can complain all they want about questions of torture in Afghanistan, but that might not raise as much interest among Canadian voters as things like the risk of loosing your job, or of increasing crime statistics. And its quite likely that it isn't that he didn't know how much foreign policy was an issue, just that it was a case of having to "see it to believe it". I'm not surprised that the conservatives have trouble in Quebec. After all, Quebec has traditionally been the province that seems to hold mostly left wing, "socialist" views, and the conservatives (even "moderate" conservatives) would have an uphill battle to gain votes there. I do have to wonder why that is an issue for you though, since: - What other people think/vote for shouldn't be an issue in deciding which party best meets your views - every party has demographics that, for whatever reason, they just can't manage to break into. The Liberals and NDP for example can't seem to get much support in Alberta. Is it that you don't think such meetings are necessary at all? Or is that you just don't like the price tag? If its that you don't think such meetings are necessary, well, most politicians think that actually meeting people in person has some value. If its the cost, well, can you point to any particular cost (except for perhaps the 'lake') that is unnecessary? Remember, G8 meetings were also held by Chretien and Trudeau. (The meetings are rotated among various countries) I suspect the G20 meetings will end up having a similar rotating format eventually. Hey, I have no problem with valid concerns about the conservatives. I just get troubled when people criticize the party for things that also apply to other parties.

Just wondering why exactly you'd expect that the coalition would have the coalition disintegrate, followed by a conservative victory? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't happen, just that there was no guarantee it would happen either. I could point out the situation in Ontario in the 80s where a conservative government lost power to a coalition of Liberals/NDP; when that coalition ended, the Liberals ended up winning a majority in the following election. Turning over power to a coalition you think might collapse would be extremely risky... the coalition might last longer than you think, or it might have somehow convinced voters that the opposition parties were worth supporting in later elections. (That would end up with the conservatives being stuck in opposition for years again.) Given those chances, simply holding onto power might have been the best move.

Kind of agree with your sentiments here. Remember, when Harper first prorogued parliament to prevent an opposition coalition from taking over, the reason is that the Liberals/NDP/Bloc didn't like the fact that there was no stimulus spending proposed by the conservatives. (In fact, I think the conservatives were actually planning on cutting spending.) While it may be easy to complain about the conservatives for not "sticking to their guns" and keeping costs low, the alternative (letting the coalition take over) would also have lead to large deficits.

I do have to take issue with the argument that "because crime is falling nothing needs to be done", for a number of reasons: - Crime is falling in a lot of countries, and its likely due to demographics (younger people tend to cause more crime, and as the population ages there are more seniors who are less likely to rob banks, mug little old ladies, and steal cars.) However, that doesn't necessarily mean that having 'fear' over crime is unreasonable - Even if crime is decreasing, where is it written that that is enough? Ideally the crime rate should be 0, but I do recognize that as an impossibility. Are the crime rates decreasing fast enough? (Did you know that Canada has a higher overall crime rate than the U.S., when dealing with 'victim oriented' crime? Should we be proud of that?) Law and Order is one of the core functions of government. I'd much rather see them spend money on that than on, for example, business or cultural subsidies. If someone deserves to be in jail, then they deserve to be in jail, and if we say "we can't afford to punish criminals" then the government has failed. (And if financial concerns are an issue, then find other ways to save money; for example, change the drug laws regarding possession.)

Maddox agrees... http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=five_shitty_movies

How Twilight should have ended... http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/38615/BLADE+Hates+twilight/