Wayward Son

Several years ago on a conspiracy theory type forum in a thread that had got pretty unfriendly (to say the least) on a topic concerning public health, a poster managed to track down my personal information (name, address, phone number, place of work etc) and posted it. I have to say that it left me pretty uncomfortable. A couple posters 100% believed that the government was trying to wipe out much of the world's population through a couple public health measures, and I fully understood that to them I represented pure evil (I don't work in public health, but clearly must be bought off by the government). It wasn't a case of people disagreeing on the internet. It was a case of some people believing that the government was absolutely trying to kill them and their family, and to them I was a willing spokesperson for that impending slaughter. Even though nothing happened there (I had actually left that employer and moved a couple months before), I am still not a fan of people's names being required. It puts certain people at a disadvantage. Some people have names that are incredibly common; others have names that are pretty uncommon. I have also once been the subject of national media attention and (despite the attention being positive) found it pretty disconcerting.

There is the old saying that someone had gained just enough knowledge to be dangerous. The human body produces formaldehyde non-stop. Almost every cell. The same goes for almost everything you eat. I just had two apples and therefore I consumed formaldehyde. How much? I would guess around 300 mg/kg. It is the dose that makes the poison. Too much water can kill you, yet water is essential and, of course, your body is mostly water. Formaldehyde can be toxic at a high enough concentration, yet your body produces it naturally and it is impossible to survive without consuming it. This kind of thinking represents the failure of our education system to teach science properly, along with avoiding (in most cases) the teaching of critical thinking and scientific skepticism completely. Such skills were probably not essential 40 years ago, but in the modern world where the internet has allowed nonsense to be spread so broadly and quickly it is becoming more and more important to be able to assess the quality of information. Whether it is completely inaccurate views about aspartame or vaccines or whatever else, it is so sad to see some people spend so much time and effort convincing themself that nonsense is true, when they could spend that same time learning about the real world instead.

People used your personal finances to show that your claim that governments should NEVER run a deficit is hypocrisy. Your subsequent claims that your personal debts and deficits are different because you agree to a repayment date still does not support your position that governments should never run a deficit. However, while it is simple, I don't think that people should compare personal households to governments. For instance, if I found myself spending more than I was making and I cut back on expenses, say 20%, that would improve my situation in the long run and have no real impact on anyone outside of my household. However, if every household in the country decided to cut back on expenses by 20% the average household would not find that their fiscal situation was improved for the simple reason that the 20% decline in personal spending across the country would wipe out jobs and contract the economy. The IMF, long the hugest supporter of austerity, has said that in the current fiscal crisis austerity measures have led to slowed growth and that countries that invoked stimulus spending have done far better. It sounds great to say that Governments should just cut program spending to avoid deficits, but that is being oblivious to the reality of how the economy works when changes in the economy can transfer a budget surplus into a $15 billion deficit over the course of one year. As the IMF has said the fiscal multiplier has been about 0.9 to 1.7 for European countries during this fiscal crisis. That means that if find that you are facing a deficit of $1 billion, cutting spending by $1 billion would not wipe out that deficit because the reduction of $1 billion in spending would lead to a reduction in revenues of anywhere from $0.9 billion to $1.7 billion. At best cutting spending during a fiscal crisis does nothing to decrease the deficit in question, at worst it dramatically worsens the deficit. The time to pay down the debt was in the years leading up to the financial crisis when the economy was in good enough shape that cutting government spending would not adversely affect the economy. This was done by the Chretien and Clinton governments who turned large deficits into large surpluses without harming growth. Dubya did the opposite and through massive spending increases and tax cuts brought the US from record surpluses to record deficits. Obama got stuck inheriting an economy where deficits were already above $1 trillion and spending cuts would have just pushed the American economy further down the tubes.

Clinton would be 69 in 2016 which would make her the second oldest person elected president (Reagan also 69 when elected, was a couple months older than Hilary would be). So I have my doubts, but certainly Hilary is far more driven than most.

I agree. It is pure fantasy. I often hear (twice on this thread by both Wild Bill and Mr Canada) about Reagan firing the air traffic controllers and how the same thing could be done with the teachers. Either these people are living in a fantasy world, or they have little understanding of what actually happened with PATCO. I side with Reagan on the PATCO firing. The air traffic controllers initiated an illegal strike. They did so despite having signed an oath to never strike. And they remained on strike past the 48 hour deadline which Reagan gave them to return to their jobs. He had warned them in no uncertain terms that they would be fired if they did not return to their jobs by that deadline. In the US Reagan could also use the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act. I know of nothing similar here. I sympathize with the workers who were fired. They had been receiving a raw deal for years working a job where they were overworked, understaffed, and underpaid (this was recognized by Reagan himself during the 1980 campaign). At the same time the workers had over the years fought to make aviation safer, and a lot of improvements had been made in the past because of them. They had been negotiating for about 8 months at the time. They had won large wage and benefit increases. They were at the same time continuing to push for better working conditions (which I feel were legitimate in many of their demands, but not all) and even better wages and benefits. Reagan’s administration supported their position enough that he had overstepped the FAA and offered further wage increases (which I believe were about $10,000 a year in increases – in 1981, probably the equivalent of $30,000 today). Reagan supported the rights of the workers to both be unionized and to bargain. While he did not support strikes by unions and union members who are public sector and deemed to be essential for public safety reasons, he did support the right of other unions to strike. Those who have since used Reagan’s action to attack union rights to unionize and bargain such as Governor Walker are misrepresenting Reagan and the event completely. It should also be said that Reagan’s decision cost a lot of money. I am ok with that, as I think that sometimes it is costly to uphold the law. For starters, since that time air traffic controllers have been paid at the level (in comparison to a certain level of airline pilots) that PATCO had been fighting for. Their benefits are very good, possibly better than PATCO ever asked for. When management is forced to work on the front-line (as they were after PATCO for months, or even years in some cases) they often discover fairly quickly that the improvements in working conditions that they had been so virulently opposed to, now all the sudden make a whole lot of sense. The government lost thousands of employees who they had spent 3 years training, and now had to train thousands more. And for those who hate unions, the air traffic controllers unionized again within a couple years. The costs to the government were several fold more than giving into ALL of the union’s demands (and things probably could have been settled by giving into 20 or 30% of their demands, but all in all the firing of the ATCs is estimated to have cost a couple billion dollars, whereas giving into all of PATCOs demands would have cost about 700 million, and the reality is that a deal would have likely been agreed to costing the government 100 – 200 million). That is not a criticism of Reagan or his administration, as I said earlier that respecting the law often costs more money. I am not a fan of Reagan at all. I sympathize with situation the air traffic controllers were in. However, I still side with Reagan on this issue. Legally it was very clear cut. For the same reasons I side with the teachers. The teachers are not breaking the law, I can’t say for sure what the courts will decide about the legality of McGuinty’s actions but if I was a betting person I would not risk my money on McGuinty. Several times on here someone has posted part of the bill which shows that the legislation took away from teachers rights that all Ontarians are supposed to have, as well as the bill attempting to leave the teachers with no legal route to challenge an action being imposed on them. I have seen no one dispute that, instead the posters just ignore it. None of this was needed. Teachers had already agreed to a pay freeze (and a 1.5% cut the following year) as well as a reduction in benefits. However, McGuinty and his government are bullies, who are thoroughly unethical and corrupt. I have been unfortunate enough to deal with them myself and can say that I have nothing positive to say about this 100% morally bankrupt group of people. That is not due to political allegiance, as I have voted Liberal, PC, NDP or Green depending on the local candidate. I view the actions of this government against the teachers to be pure dog whistle politics. An avalanche of lies against one group of people because 1) said group is not popular with another segment of the population 2) and government has so little respect for Ontarians that they are willing to lie and attack one group in the hopes that doing so will win them an extra seat in the by-elections and therefore their coveted majority. I find such actions to be thoroughly disgusting. Those who do so are bottom feeders who should never be allowed to serve political office. And those who support such actions should be ashamed of themselves. Some people feel that teachers have it too good. I have no opinion. I am not a teacher, nor do I know any teachers well enough to actually know what they get, what they have to put up with, and what they give. However, if you think they should have less then it is your responsibility to deal with that legally. To either bargain harder against them (by which I mean electing a government that would do so) or by changing the laws in this country.

There are many things that have a possible correlation with CCD. GMOs, despite being brought up many times due to fear mongering - and due to that fear mongering being studied frequently, is not one of them. This is almost on par with claims that vaccines cause autism. Ridiculous. This story stems from an uneducated, conspiracy nut spewing nonsense on globalresearch and linking terminator seeds (which do not exist anywhere but in this nut cases head) with CCD (incidentally by using sources which state nothing along the lines of his claims). It is on par with the ravings of Glen Beck. Well seeing as the rates of colorectal cancer incidence remained stable in Canada between 1983 and 2000, and since 2000 it has seen a statistically significant decline in incidence (This all comes from "Canadian Cancer Statistics 2012" by the Canadian Cancer Society, Statistics Canada, and the Public Health Agency of Canada), I would have to say that if there is any connection between GMOs and colon cancer then you should start eating GMOs. Similarly colorectal cancer rates are about the same in developed countries where GMO consumption is common compared to countries where it is rare. I would say that such claims are on par with the nuttiest claims made by climate change deniers.

Thanks. Living a reality-based life is working out very well for me.

My definition of non-fiction may not be completely correct. I didn't bother to look up a definition, especially that late at night. However, my definition is certainly much more accurate than a fact/fiction divide. The problem with using the fact/fiction dividing line is that facts are not necessarily agree upon (and facts change as new information appears). One of my favorite non-fiction books remains "The Guns of August" although in the decades since it was written one of the major themes of the book has been shown to be wrong (The position that none of countries involved actually wanted war. Instead they just kind of stumbled along into a war that no one wanted, because none of them were not willing to back down. Documents released since that time have shown that in fact Germany wanted war, planned for war, and was planning on gaining significant power and influence through the war.). So is the book no longer non-fiction? Should its pulitzer prize for non-fiction be taken away? Of course not. There are tons of non-fiction books about climate change which range the complete spectrum. Obviously they all can't be fact as they come to completely different conclusions. The reality is that none of them are likely 100% factual, but they range from very factual to embarrassing trash. So what would be the dividing line? 100% factual? 90%? 50%? Who would determine how factual a book is? Many of them ignore facts that are inconvenient to their message, misinterpret and misuse facts, use things that are not facts as if they were facts, claim things about their opponents are facts when they are not and so on. Many of those books are believed by deniers on this site as being true. They are not. But the books are still classified as non-fiction. How could they not be? What regulating body is going to determine which facts are the correct ones? The simple answer is that the non-fiction classification simply does not mean that the words within such a book are true or factual. A non-fiction book can be 100% wrong about everything it says (See David Icke). Anyone can see from her television appearances she maintains that she is giving information that she believes to be true, and she maintains that she believes that she has has the powers she says she has. She may go home and laugh her head off that people can actually believe the crap she spews. She may admit to herself and her close friends that she is getting rich defrauding people. Or she may just have deluded herself. It doesn't really matter. Her books are non-fiction. That does not mean that they are true or factual.

The bible is a non-fiction book. Many people label the bible as fiction because it is filled with a bunch of stories that are clearly not true. However, that is not what what the labels fiction and non-fiction mean. David Icke's books are crackpot nonsense, but are still labelled as non-fiction because the author believes what he is saying to be true. Just because he is wrong, and deluded, doesn't change the intent of the author. The same goes for Sylvia Brown. Her books are both full of nonsense and wrong, but they are still non-fiction. The bible is neither.

Your link neither says that he has been a registered democrat his whole life, or that he's supported democats 9 times out of 10. All I can find so far is Lee Iacocca endorsing: 2000 - Dubya ® 2004 - Kerry (D) 2006 - DeVos ® 2008 - Richardson (D) 2012 - Romney ® 3 out of 4 (so far) lost their race. Sounds like this endorsement is a real game changer.....

I don't think I even know one catholic who gives a damn what the bishops say.

Good point. Obama did not visit Israel during his 2 day trip. In comparison Dubya made sure that he never visited the middle east without going to Israel. When he spent 4 days in the middle east in 2003 he went to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Qatar. (except that he didn't go to Israel. In fact in Bush's first 7 years he never went to Israel - going to 108 other countries first - despite going to the middle east pretty damn often. And Daddy Bush and uncle Ronny didn't go to Israel at all when President.)

I agree with Punked. CBS had a decisive win for Obama. Perhaps you could could show a link to the Fox "News" poll, as I have yet to find it.

Seems like a non-issue. Ford and Campbell didn't seem to have their career damaged by drinking and driving. Certainly being a drunk passenger is far less of an issue then the ones who were operating a vehicle.

I think so. Elizabeth MacDonald's widow is incidently a retired Anglican priest, who now actively promotes choice in dying (and was recently featured in the Toronto Star, as well as having a popular blog). He considers the opposition to be almost entirely religious.

Not true. Among teenaged boys suicide rates have been dropping by about 1% per year for a long time. The suicide rate among boys aged 15 - 19 in Canada was 19/100,000 in 1980. It has steadily fallen year by year since. In 2008 the rate was 12.1/100,000. In terms of absolute numbers among young Canadian men the number of suicides has fallen from 249 (1980) to 156 (2008). The rate has increased for young women at the same time, but they commit suicide in much smaller numbers than their male counterparts. The number of 15 - 19 year olds (of both sexes) in Canada who committed suicide was 299 in 1980, and had fallen to 233 by 2008. And by the way the suicide rate for males as a whole in Canada for 2008 was 17.9/100,000. So teenaged males with a rate of 12.1 were well below most other age groups. The group with the highest rate (ages 40 - 59). And the overall suicide rate among all Canadians is at its lowest since about 1968. Yes the numbers were significantly lower in the 1950s and before, but to be honest I simply do not trust the accuracy of suicide numbers from the 50s or earlier. It was a different culture. A relative of mine committed suicide in the mid-50s, and was a tightly kept family secret. So you can be pretty sure that it was never reported as such.

The general argument when it comes to rights, is that able-bodied people have the right and ability to commit suicide on their own. Those who, due to severe terminal illness, are unable to commit suicide on their own are denied that right. Rodriguez committed suicide because the Supreme Court denied her the right to assisted suicide. She was physically able to commit suicide at the time of the supreme court decision, but her position was that very soon ALS would rob her of the ability. She wanted to live longer, spend more time with her children. Had she been allowed access to doctor-assisted suicide she would have been able to enjoy that time knowing when it became to much she could have ended it with help. The situation was similar for Elizabeth MacDonald on the east coast - suffered from MS, went to Switzerland for doctor assisted suicide at a date earlier than she wished to because she felt that if she waited much longer she may not have been healthy enough to physically make the trip. Had doctor assisted suicide been legal in Canada she would have lived longer. Most recently, this summer the courts in the UK ruled that Tony Nicklinson, who had locked-in syndrome, must stay alive. The judges should be thoroughly embarassed with themselves. Following the decision he starved himself, dying 8 days later. The legal system only ensured that his few final days were as miserable as possible. Bravo.

Are you suggesting that Ontario is the province with the highest taxes?

Personally I feel that if Hudak and the PC gave Frank Klees more support in April 2011 they could have cracked the Ornge scandal wide open by June. They would not have had all the ammunition that came out through the Auditor General or Kevin Donovan and the Toronto Star, but I think they would have had more than enough to seriously hammer the Liberals, leaving the PCs with either a minority or possibly a majority. It was a huge missed opportunity that only Klees seemed to see at the time.

No. I assume it would be extremely low. However, your question is completely irrelevant.

Actually much lower as the prognosis for thyroid cancer is bettert than most cancers. Thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival rate of about 85%. If found at stage 1 or 2 it is almost 100%.

Like I said, bring evidence. Your assertion is that NSERC must have bias. That is your set position. My assertion is that I have no reason to conclude that there is bias unless evidence is shown. That is my set position. My set position can be changed - all you need to provide evidence. Your set position would be difficult to change as it would require proving a negative.

Systemic bias in one direction should be noticable. Yes every human being within the organization has some bias, but that does not mean that the sum of the bias is directional. It could for the most part just cancel out. Are there organziations that are biased? Sure. Does that mean that all organizations are? No. Without seeing evidence to support NSERC bias I have no reason to accept it. Doing so would simply be accepting your bias.

I figured that you wouldn't. Reality is ignored by many.

Wow, I went back and found that thread. I can't fathom how you managed to stay sane dealing with the that level of overwhelming stupidity.