ReeferMadness

A late-breaking update: link

No, we won't. What we'll see is a big charade where a bunch of lawyers protect a bunch of established interests. And then someone may get slapped on the wrist or maybe not. There will be no truth coming out. There will be no justice. Nothing will change. How do I know? That's what happens with EVERY inquiry involving the conduct of the police. The trigger-happy yahoo who fired 9 times, 6 of them after this poor guy was lying on his back, will have a lawyer, paid for by the citizens of Toronto. Who will speak for Sammy? They've already announced that the moron who used the taser isn't even under investigation. This guy either tasered a dead body or tortured someone who was taking his dying breath.

And you think it is always wrong to break the law? What secrets exactly has he given up that would really benefit another country? As far as I can tell, the only reason the authorities are upset was that he dared to say things that everyone here is claiming are common knowledge.

What you say may be true but here's the problem. Your government is making Snowden into a very big deal through the amount of political capital being expended on him. You say Snowden is a side show but the actions of your government say differently. You say that this type of spying is routine but then why the international furor? Maybe Snowden's real crime is that he's dared to expose the gross hypocrisy of international relations; where supposed allies spy on one another. Maybe that's why nobody really wants anything to do with him.

Well, if there is nothing wrong with the US spying on its so-called allies, then there is nothing wrong with Snowden telling everyone about it. Right?

Does anyone else find it odd that these so-called Libertarians who have no trouble getting enraged that the government is enforcing a minimum wage are suddenly conflicted over a massive, uncontrolled invasion of privacy?

I'm no expert in cryptography but it seems to me that you're making a few assumptions: that the method used to break in would be a 'brute force' attack (ie trying all of the keys) that some of the surveillance organizations don't already have 'back doors' into public encryption schemes that only conventional computers are used. Theoretically, at least, quantum computers would have no problem cracking existing encryption schemes Encryption is no magic bullet

Winning hearts and minds.

And how would you like scientific debates to be settled? Armwrestling? Parchesi tournaments? Caber tossing?

Yes, those climate change alarmists like Munich Re.

The election was 2 years ago. What would you expect? How many people can remember a call they received in 2011??

Here is a blog written by a former Albertan.

What left-wing, soft-headed, communist-sympathizing, socialist-loving organization is responsible for this statement? Why, it's none other than Munich Re, the reinsurance giant. Damned communist insurance companies.

Waldo, you're wasting your time. Your logical and scientific arguments, well constructed as they are, will bounce off faith-based beliefs like ping pong balls hitting a concrete wall. The world's biggest religion isn't Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. It's Capitalism. The people who adhere to its tenets are as devoted and immune to counter-arguments as any religious fundamentalist. They can and will rationalize anything. A suggestion that economic activity is damaging or unsustainable is a suggestion that economic activity should be limited. Any suggestion that economic growth should be limited due to resource shortages or damage to the planet must be wrong and must be stamped out. You are a heretic. Therefore, you are wrong. Ipso facto.

The only key thing to remember is that this event has nothing to do with climate change. Since climate change doesn't exist, it did not contribute to this freak event. Now let's all bow our heads and pray to the great gods of Capitalism. They will tell us what to do.

People are so apathetic. That's the pathetic part of apathetic. A country gets the government it deserves and God help us, apparently we deserve Harper. Some bad karma there somewhere.

Unless you still live in the 18th century, there is nothing intrinsic identifying oneself as part of a geographic area. Nor is there anything intrinsic about organizing representation solely around geographic areas. Ridings are just lines on a map and provinces aren't much more than that. Many people are better acquainted with distant friends and relatives than they are with their next door neighbors. Communities are becoming more and more virtual rather than physical. Politics simply hasn't caught up with technology.

Obviously, I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that the current holders of political power (federal MP's, senators, provincial governments, city governments) are all representing geographic subsections of the country. And the combination of them is tearing the country apart. We need a strong voice for Canada to balance things. And that will certainly not come from the Harperites.

Oh, I very much doubt that. Bush did what his handlers told him, he was just bright enough to know that he wasn't bright enough to be president. I'm sure that Cheney and Rumsfield regularly reminded him he was only a figurehead. Of all of the things that people feel for Bush, I don't think that 'respect' would make the top 50.

this is the internet. For all anyone knows, bc is a homeless guy using a computer in a library. Whatever, he's a troll.

I'm shocked, shocked, that corruption is part of standard corporate business practise. :rolleyes:

Either it needs to be rethought or the senate needs to be abolished. The last thing this country needs is more regional bias. We're already being torn apart by regionalism and provincialism. The HoC constituencies, being based on local geographic zones, already presents a regional aspect. The provinces (especially Quebec but not just Quebec) have become increasingly influential political actors. What's needed is a house that is pan-Canadian in nature, with the ability to build constituencies on the basis of issues and viewpoints, not just on geography.

With the Republican-wannabe's running the country, that's no surprise at all.

OK, you got me there. I did learn this once in Grade 5 but I'd mercifully forgotten. It may not be very complicated but nor is it very fair or very intelligent. Dividing up the provinces into regions based on proximity (and the population base at the time the Senate was formed) is arbitrary and a recipe for problems.

There are other possibilities such as wind, solar and tidal.