segnosaur

Don't really think its such a big deal... Whenever any vaccination is given, there is a very small probability of some adverse reaction. (This can happen regardless of how well the vaccine is manufactured.) For example, anyone with an alergy to eggs or egg products should not take the flu vaccine because they use eggs in the incubation process. So, I suspect that vaccine manufacturers want to avoid a case where someone has a bad reaction and sues, not because they made a mistake in manufacturing the vaccine, but because the individual had a bad reaction due to some unique aspect of their biology.

The fact that its "not the way our system works" doesn't necessarily mean that we can't complain, nor make suggestions about how the system should be improved. You know. some people want to have the senate abolished. Quite an understandable concept. Others would like to see the senate be both effective and elected... taking the opportunity to amend, reject or delay legislation based on the wishes of the constituants. However, having a senate that does 'take action', and is not elected, is basically the worst of both worlds. Since senators are not elected, they are not answerable to any constiuents, and there is no guarantee they will be the bastion of "sober thought" that they are supposed to be instead of political hacks voting along party line.

First of all, while I agree that crime rates have fallen in recent years, that might be due more to a change in population demographics (e.g. the average age of Canadians is increasing) than anything involving our justice system. Secondly, there is more to this than just the effect on crime rates. If someone commits a crime, they should spend a certain amount of time in jail, regardless of whether the criminal has "learned their lesson" and could be let out sooner.

And a couple of years ago, while I was on a business trip in Africa, I ended up talking with someone from Uganda who said that Idi Amin was actually a good ruler. The fact that some individuals, who may have either been in a privileged class, or may not have had other options consider a previous political system 'good' doesn't mean that it is so. At least here in the western world, we have enough freedom of speech such that alternatives can be freely discussed. Except the communist societies typically did have different 'classes', but mobility between the classes was even more strongly enforced than in western countries. On the other hand, your typical incomes in communist countries are so low, that health care and education have to be free, because people could not afford it otherwise. Yet they fell behind the U.S. and other western 'capitalist' countries in so many ways... Yes, they had the first satalite and the first people in space, but the U.S. was first to the moon, first to launch a probes to the outer planets, etc. And frankly, given the fact that the country had a population numbering in the hundreds of millions, they should have had at least a few capable scientists. Actually, no, they don't. You see, there is a difference in the way infant mortality is calculated in the 2 countries. If a premature child is born in Cuba, they would not administer intensive medical care, and the event would be recorded as a 'fetal death' (so it wouldn't count in the infant mortality statistics). On the other hand, the same premature child born in the U.S. would result in substantial medical care. Sometimes this care would be successful, sometimes it would not. However, if attempts were made to keep the child alive, and those attempts failed, then it would be considered a live birth, followed by a death. See: http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/200...fant-mortality/ Actually, not sure if that's exactly true... while there may have been variious merchant classes over the past millenium, most of the earth's population existed under some form of autocratic rule/fudalism/etc. It has only been since around the 18th/19th centuries that capitalism (at least in the form that we would recognize) has become a significant economic system. Actually, those aren't so much the characteristics of 'unregulated capitalism' as they are the characteristics of depressed economies and lack of human rights. Keep in mind that prior to capitalism 'abusing' the workers, many people were stuck in feudal societies where they were likewise 'abused', living in poverty. Yes, going from being subject to some nobleman to being stuck in a factory wasn't really much of an advancement, but it shouldn't necessarily be considered a step 'backwards' either. Actually, don't discount the effects of the improved standard of living for making capitalism 'bearable'. After all, No, we wouldn't. After all, when the economy is strong, employees have the ability to demand better working conditions, better environmental controls, etc. (Remember, here in the western world, we have a slightly better record of handling the environment than the former communist countries did.) Perhaps not, but we can hold the opinion that some economic/political systems are bad enough for such a significant portion of the population that they can and should be avoided at all costs.

So it is a rip off of Shaun of the Dead... Not at all... It is true that both movies are about a relatively small group of people trying to save themselves during a zombie epidemic, but both movies have a completely different focus. While Shaun of the Dead relied at least in part on wit and satire, Zombieland was a more direct, "in your face" movie that relies on shocks and basic or gross-out humour. (That's not necessarily a bad thing... Zombieland pulled it off very very well.) And while there are similarities in overall concept, there are large differences in the details. For example, all the characters in Shaun of the Dead were long-time friends, while in Zombieland they were just 'thrown' together, giving a totally different group dynamic. Also, the character played by Woodie Harleson (the macho Zombie-Killer) had no couterpart in Shaun of the Dead.

Even if she does want the whole thing dropped, that's not really up to her. The law is supposed to provide not just restitution, but also retribution and deterrence. That is correct. I'd also like to point out while the girl is the direct victim, she is not the only one who was adversly affected by his crimes. Many people suffered indirectly, from the taxpayers who had to fund his initial arrest/incarceration/etc., to people who unfortunately have to negatively restrict the movement of their children. Whenever a crime occurs, EVERYONE suffers to some degree. True. In fact, they had made attempts as recently as 2007, when he visited Israel. (Unfortunately, the U.S. was not able to get all the relevant information to Israeli authorities in time.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/ro...e-director.html Its quite possible that the reason why the prosecutors had a renewed interest in the case is that Polanski himself (through his lawyers) was attempting to get the charges dropped. Had he simply sat in Europe, molesting the children there, then the U.S. authorities may not have even bothered to ask Switzerland to arrest him.

That's not quite correct. At the time the plea bargin, it was made completely clear to Ponanski that there were no guarantees with regards to sentencing. Polanski may have ASSUMED that he would not receive any substantial jail time, but even under the plea bargin it was up to the judge to decide on the sentence. From the plea transcript (At: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...nskiplea8.html) Gunson: “Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?” Polanski: "Yes" ... Gunson: “Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of probation and sentencing, the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison, or be incarcerated in the County Jail?” Polanski: “Yes.” Now, there WAS an issue where the judge may have engaged in ex parte communications with a prosecutor. (I say "may", because any evidence of this was rather, shall we say, shakey.) However, this should have been dealt with through the court system. (Not to mention the fact that this was revealed until years after Polanski had fled, something that Polanski wouldn't have known about at the time)

Just a little note... In the Grindhouse double feature, Planet Terror was directed by Rodruguez, while Tarantino directed Death Proof. (Although your point may still stand... Death Proof was certainly less enjoyable than Planet Terror, and probably not as good as Tarantino's other movies.

Actually, no, its not. You see, the word 'belief' implies that you accept something without proof. And that's what christianity, islam, judaism, and a whole host of religions are... the belief, without proof, that there is some god out there. Now, it is true that you can't prove a negative. However, the total lack of physical evidence for ANY god is a good indication (if not absolute proof) that there IS no god. Athiests are just following the evidence and gaining an understading of the universe based on what the facts tell them. Actually, no... Most athiest/secular people probably have quite a good knowledge of what 'faith' is and why its important... the fact that we UNDERSTAND religious faith doesn't necessarily mean we have to HAVE religious faith, any more than an oncologist has to have cancer in order to treat patients. First of all, keep in mind that what you consider an 'assault' on faith is, by and large, a protection mechanism. In many cases, athiests find it necessary to stand up to religious types when those types attempt to impose their views on others (such as denying homosexuals the right to marry based on the bible, or trying to bring in creationism in the classroom.) In those cases, the religous types are not the innoncent victims; they are the agressors. Secondly, you are assuming that blind incorrect faith is worth saving. Put it this way, if you found out your grandmother was giving her life savings over to a con-man who was making false promises (e.g. "I'll double your money by investing in Bre-X"), would it not be a good idea to try to convince your grandmother of the error of her ways, evenif, at the time, her "belief" in the con-man was something that she considered "so dear" and important to her at the time? Really? And what about the contradictions? In Leviticus 25, it says we should fear god, but in 2 Timothy it suggests that we shouldn't fear god. In John 3, it suggests god loved the whole world, but in other parts of the bible (e.g. Leviticus) it points out that there are people that god hated. So, which parts do you believe? And if you have to end up 'interpreting' the bible in order to understand it, then how do you actually know that you're actually living up to the word of god? All of your interpretations may have been incorrect.

Ummm... so? What's wrong with using their wands as weapons? Would you have enjoyed the movie more had Harry been packing an M-16 rather than his wand? (From a logistical standpoint, it makes sense that they would use wands rather than guns... no need to worry about ammunition, and the wand would have non-combat purposes as well.) Or, it could be the result of excitement/adrenaline of the combatants. So? What's wrong with that? Its the story of an average person put into extraordinary situations, something that's common in modern media. It makes him a bit more identifiable to the average person, and makes it more interesting than the 'Superman' who can fix all problems. Actually, in the previous movie Harry was actually skilled enough to TEACH his peers certain magic (the defense-against-the-dark-arts stuff). So, single-handedly chasing down a group of people responsible for killing someone isn't considered a 'heroic' gesture (even if he was unsuccessful at the end)? Although they didn't emphasize Herminone's intelligence as much as they did in previous movies, she DID get invited to the Slug Club.

First of all, while it IS true that there is a lot of black and white/good vs. evil in Harry Potter, keep in mind that the series was originally geared towards children/younger adults. Secondly, there IS a significant amount of 'gray' in the books. Yes, Vodemort can be considered pure 'evil', Dumbledore 'good', but many of the other characters DO have a certain ambiguity, and their motivations are not always clear. For example: - Draco, may be considered 'evil', but is unable to accomplish his goals in HBP - The motivations for Snape's actions are as yet unclear - Even though Harry can be considered MOSTLY good, he still often lets baser instincts (revenge, etc.) dictate his actions

Yes, I am aware of some polls which show the majority of people who don't like the idea of private heatlh care. Personally, I would be a bit hesitant to trust this particular poll... the reason? Because, they asked multiple questions, one question on 'American Style' health care, the next on 'increased privatization'. My opinion is that they kind of 'poisoned the well' by doing so, since any question following the "American style health care" question will cause some people to assume "privatization" means going to an all-for-profit system, even if the survey actually wanted to know if they wanted a public/private mix. It would kind of like an interviewer asking people "How many live kittens do you think Harper eats in a day"? "Do you think the prime minister is a good guy"? (I am speaking partly from personal experience here... I've been involved in designing surveys before. Never for such a wide audience, but we did have to be very careful about doing anything that might mislead people.)

The U.S. is certainly not perfect. However, things like this need to be put into context. At the time that the U.S. was "friends" with Saddam, Iraq and Iran were engaged in a war. To many, it seemed logical to support Iraq as a way to prevent the spread of Iranian-based fundamentalism. Kind of the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend", or the "lesser of 2 evils". Was it a smart decision in the long run? Who knows. It did make sense at the time. And even when the U.S. was "friends" with Saddam, their actual support was VERY limited. (The majority of Iraqi arms still came from the USSR, and the U.S. wasn't even the main supplier of components for chem/bio weapons. Actually, I'd be very suspicious of claims that OBL was somehow 'affiliated' with the US and CIA. The only time that they would have been working together would have been during the Soviet invasion of afghanistan, and at the time the U.S. was giving aid to the native Afghan Muhujadeen. They had no need to fund bin Laden. From: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/1...wers/index.html The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

You're assuming that the shortage of doctors and nurses is the only bottleneck in the system. Yes, it does take a while to train new doctors, but in the short term, improved private health care options could help by: - Encouraging doctors who MIGHT have considered moving to the U.S. to stay (This wouldn't help improve the situation, but it might keep it from getting worse) - Improve the availability of infrastructure (e.g. more private MRI clinics, PET scanners, etc.) In the long term, the possibility of improved pay and/or working conditions that would come from private health care funding might convince some people to become doctors/nurses that might otherwise have chosen other careers; however, even if that doesn't happen (and it might not, since medicine requires specific skills that are relatively rare), the short term benefits (infrastructure, stemming the 'brain drain') would still apply.

I myself am atheists, so I have a basic dislike/distrust of all religions. The way I see it, Islam has 3 specific problems: A higher portion of people with radical ideas. Now, I admit, there ARE radicals in every religion... Christianity has the KKK for example. However, the portion of the population that make up such radicals is small. While I'm sure that the number of "radical" muslims is probably still a minority, they still make up a larger portion of the population than 'radical' christians. Put it this way, you claim that "only" a small number of muslims live under (or want to live under) Shaira law; however, even though that number is small, its still a larger number than the number of Christians who want to live under a strict christian theocracy. And even countries that aren't under Sharia law can still mix Islam and government in ways that most of us find uncomfortable. (Look at all the government supported anti-jewish material put out in places like Egypt and Palestine.) Its a shame that all muslims get unfairly criticized for the actions of a few. I'm just stating this as a possible basis for people's fears. Willingness to condem extremists Most Christian extemists are looked down on.... the KKK for example is made fun of regularly in movies. On the other hand, it seems like even if muslims don't support extremists, they also aren't as willing to condem them. As an example, you won't find regular condemnations of (for example) suicide attacks on Jewish civilians in the muslim world. The Extremes adherents are willing to go Yes, there are obnoxious Christians, Jews etc. However, the most extreme thing that a Christian is willing to do is annoy you by knocking on your door durring dinner time. Muslims however, are willing to engage in suicide attacks, riots, etc. in defence of their faith. The way I see it, there was a time when the Christian religion was the "bad guy" and Islam was considerably more enlightened. However, Christianity went through its trials and self-examination, and reformed itself to something that is relatively benign. (Still wrong, but mostly harmless.) It seems that, at least in part, the Islamic faith hasn't yet gone under the same 'reformation' process. (Understandable, since the religion is several centuries younger than others.)

There are polls that disagree with you... Of the 1000 adults polled..., 30% preferred scenario 3 and 29% preferred scenario 2, 26% the status quo and only 15% scenario 4. http://www.cmaj.ca/news/08_06_06.shtml So, when all options are clearly layed out, it seems that Canadains may not be that opposed to some private health care. (The other options in the article described various mixtures of public and private heatlth care.) Actually, there is a reason to allow people to buy care faster. You see, when healh care is controlled by the central government, decisions are made based on what the government at the time thinks is important. And beauracracy is often slow to change, since there is often no incentive to do so. On the other hand, when you allow privatization, it provides a much better measure of what the people themselves think is important. (i.e. if someone thinks hip replacement surgery is important, they can pay for it out of their own pocket, even if the government things (perhaps wrongly) that such surgery is not needed. Countries in Europe successfully mix private and public health care. Coverage is universal, and the responsiveness is usually ranked higher than that in Canada. So what would be wrong in adopting some of those methods?

Nor does it guarantee that the results are true either. At best, it makes the results irrelevant. You're right, they do (at least compared to Americans). But there may be reasons for that other than health care. The U.S. has a higher murder rate than Canada. They also have a higher rate of automobile accidents. In many cases, those individuals will die before they ever get access to the medical system to handle their 'problem'. And both of those will reduce the 'average' life expectency. (There may also be differences in diet, weight, etc. that can also be contributing factors). That may or may not be the case (I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it is.) Even if some countries may be better at handling some diseases however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the health care system as a whole is better. A system that better handles the problems of 90% of all people is better than the system which better handles the problems of the remaining 10%. It also has a lot to do with the extra money that they spend. Its given them more MRIs per capita, more PET scanners, etc. Its also attracted many doctors. Yes, often it does. But if you're trying to compare government run vs. private health care, then you need to ask more than just "does the Canadian system usually meet our needs. I never said it was bad. I also never said that the U.S. system is necessarily better than Canada's. I've already acknowledged the problems in the U.S system. I think a mix of private and public health care (as is used in most of the western world) is the best way to go. Unfortunately, here in Canada we seem to have this deep-rooted fear of 'privatization' (usually assuming it means bringing in an American style system), when a better model can be found in places line Europe or Japan where private and public systems co-exist.

No, what I'm saying is that if there IS proof, this study likely isn't it. Kind of like the existance of alien life... there MAY be proof out there, but if someone takes a picture of an old hubcap they tossed in the air and claims "UFO", rejecting THAT evidence as faulty does not mean that ALL evidence will be rejected in the future. My personal opinion is that the US system is probably better than Canada's and probably every other country in terms of its overall ability to treat patients, And the WHO rankings provide evidence of this. Patients can get access to the best possible medical technology, and can usually get treatment much faster than in other western countries. However, I do acknowledge that they have a much more expensive system, and that there is a disparity between treatments available to the wealthy and the poor. Whether you choose to judge a health care system based on the treatment available to the average person or the poorest person is a personal choice. If I see convincing evidence showing that treatments available in the US are NOT better than in Canada or other developed countries, I will change my opinion. I just recognize that this particular study is not that evidence.

If anyone hasn't read the article, let me summarize: The authors went through a bunch of medical journals, and looked for articles that allowed them to compare the outcomes of patients in Canada and the U.S. If an article showed better results under the Canadian system, they 'awarded' the study to Canada. If an article showed better results under the American system, they 'awarded' the study to the American system. The results showed more studies showing superior outcomes under the Canadian system when compared to the American system. Keep in mind that there are several significant problems with this particular article... - The authors may have a bias... One of the authors (Guyatt) was an NDP candidate. least two of them (Lexchin, Yalnizyan) has written for the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, a 'left wing' think tank. Another 2 of them (Himmelstien, Wollhandler) are American doctors who were pushing for a single-payer Universal health care system in the U.S. And that's just a quick check. I haven't found any sort of indication that any of the authors had either 'conservative' leanings, or favoured for-profit private sector health care. (Now, I myself did publish a link from the Cato instutute, which itself might be biased; however, both I and they were upfront with the organization's principles, and I did back up their information with a more unbiased source) - This is a meta-study. I'm always suspecious of such studies, regardless of topic... How do you know that they didn't just happen to stumble upon (either by accident or purpose) those studies that actually prove their point? They claim to have taken steps to prevent their researchers from bias, however, the fact is that they're still taking a sample of a sample (giving a smaller pool from which to draw results, making it more prone to errors). - Much of the basis for the claims made in the article (that the U.S. does not have a better medical system) is based on the number of studies showing improved outcomes in Canada. Yet if you look at the studies favouring Canada (Table 3), you'll see that many of their studies are basically repetitions... For example, it points to 5 studies showing Canada's health care system is better at handling renal failure than the U.S. But they're 5 studies showing the same thing! Even if Canadian patients were better treated for renal failure than the American counterparts, the fact that 5 studies repeated the same thing gave more weight to the pro-Canada side than it deserved. - Very little effort is made to relate the success of treating certain diseases with improved mortality/quality of life. Thus, in that study, a disease that affects only a tiny number of people (such as AIDS) is given as much weight as a diseases that kills a relatively high number of people (such as heart disease). - In addtion, I had problems with certain individual studies. For example: * One study showing better results in Canada was restricted to only low income patients. But if you're trying to analyse the OVERALL health care system, you can't very ignore what could be a huge portion of your population * Once study dealt with AIDS; however, success in handling HIV may be due more to patent law than the quality of health care.

Keep in mind that the rankings by the WHO (and, I assume the rankings given in the article you referenced, are NOT strickly a ranking based on how good a country's health care system is. When the WHO developed its rankings, it actually took several factors into account. Some were directly related to health care (e.g. responsiveness). However, other factors were related to finances (for example, how health care costs were distributed in a population) and equality. So, in theory, a country where health care is uniformly poor with costs paid for by the government could in theory rank higher than a health care system where the health care ranked from good to excellent but the costs are born by individuals who have differing abilities to pay. Last time I checked, the U.S. ranked high on some of the factors (including responsiveness where it was rated #1), but it saw its overall ranking reduced because the costs are not distrubuted in a way that's seen as 'fair' by the WHO. If you look at quality of health care alone (which some people think should be the only measure, the U.S. should not be ranked much higher than it is. Here is an article by the CATO institute that goes into a deeper explaination. (Note: the CATO institute is a think tank that usually follows Libertarian principles, so this source is not exactly unbiased. However, their description of the WHO ranking system is accurate.) http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp101/bp101index.html And, in case you didn't believe the CATO institute article, here's an article from the Canadian Medical Association that gives a similar description to how the rankings were made. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/1/84-a

You are right in that the role of the military has changed since the days of the 'cold war'. However, a couple of things that should be kept in mind: - Given the relatively long time it takes to manufacture a plane like the F-22, the U.S. military should be planning LONG in advance - Even if none of the major superpowers become a threat in the near future, they still may be called on to handle conflicts like Iraq and Kosovo. Now, I don't think those militaries have any chance at defeating the U.S. military, even WITHOUT the F-22 raptor, but in a day when even a single soldier's death can get plastered all over the media, the military might want to minimize the potential casualties. A pilot has a much better chance to survive in an F-22 than any other plane. The F-35 is a good plane. The F-22 is much better (supersonic cruising speed, better stealth capabilities, vectored thrust/more agile). Whether the advantages of the F-22 are worth the cost is certainly debatable though. There is the Su-27, a plane used by many countries, that has a higher top speed, higher higher ceiling, and a better thrust-to-weight ration than at least some configurations of the F-35. Its possible that the F-35 will still have the advantage (based on stealth and manouvering capabilities), but it might not be completely dominante as the F-22 would be. Never underestimate either a country's greed, nor its willingness to make dumb political decisions. Remember, the U.S. actually sold F-15s to Saudi Arabia, who are supposedly our 'friends', but not exactly a country I'd fully trust, and F-14s to Iran. Who knows what Russia or China may sell to earn money.

There's nothing really to buy... the U.S. is not going to get rid of the F-22s that they currently have (well over 100). They are just not going to produce any more of them.

Which is not necessarily a good thing. In our western democracies, the rights of the minority should be respected. By suggesting 'the people' should draw the line risks a situation where the rights of the minority get trampled by the majority (i.e. mob rules).

You open the door to hate. So? As distasteful as I find 'hate speech' to be, it is still the price to pay for having the right to free speech. If you are willing to justify curtailing free speech to prevent hate, what will you do when others demand similar curtailment? I'm a believer in the 'vampire doctrine'. The best way to destroy 'hate' is to publicize it, hold it up to the light, show how rediculous it is and get people to see it for the ignorance that it is.

Well, as I outline in the video, restrictions such as I'm suggesting are already in place. Polls aren't held now in the day or so before the vote. So I'm not inventing the idea. I'm just suggesting moving it "back" a few days, which in a longer campaign won't make much difference to pollsters -- who say they don't influence voters intentions anyway. Yes, I know that there are already limits on poll results. What you're doing is suggeting taking an abuse of freedom of speech, and making it worse. Makes me think, if your party thinks curtailing one of our basic freedoms is a good thing, where exactly is it going to draw the line? Strange, during the last election results, I had no problem hearing lots of information about various party platforms and campaign happenings, even if poll results occasionally made headline news. Ever think that if a person is REALLY that stupid, then maybe they shouldn't actually BE voting? (Ok, that's not a serious response) So, you think its valid to curtail freedom of speech (more so than it is now), for the 'excitement'.