ReeferMadness

I guess that makes you and your parents model gun owners. I guess you can understand, then, that there are lots of parents that are much more liberal in their approach and that's why we need to have gun control legislation.

No, you can't. But you can base your legislation on the entirely realistic premise that not everyone has the same idea of what is reasonable. Apparently, there are people in Kentucky who think it's reasonable for a 5 year old to own a rifle.

Oh, you think maybe this is some bizarre exception?

Ah, yes the kids' .22. What could be safer or more innocent than that? Why you could give one to a 5 year old!! Yes, in Kentucky, it's OK to give a kid a rifle for his 5th birthday. I'm just waiting for the press release from the NRA - I'm sure it will go something like this:

It seems like all of the definitions of terrorism revolve around the motive rather than the act. The reasons nobody can agree on a good definition is that the right wing law-and-order types that play on defining terrorists as the enemy that we all must fear like to have the freedom to define the terrorists as it suits them. Thus, Adam Lanza was not a terrorist (defining gun nuts as terrorists hits way to close to home in the USA) but bombers are.

The Harper Conservatives are turning Canada into an international embarrassment.

that's tragic because he explained nothing. I suppose that means you have nothing to say, either.

I'm sure you're not just some knuckle-dragging Islamophobe so no doubt you've carefully researched this claim. Please reference your supporting facts.

And what is the cause of Christian terrorism?

I've seen no evidence that these two were "true believers" of anything or that anyone "sent them out". What I've read is that the older one was disillusioned, angry and didn't feel like he fit in. The younger one seems to have been influenced by his older brother. If you have evidence, post a link. Your post betrays the standard stereotypes and typifies why these acts will continue. If we want them to stop, we will understand them and the reasons behind them.

In Harper's case, not wanting to know the root cause of these violent acts is consistent with his practise of eliminating science jobs and muzzling scientists whose jobs he hasn't yet eliminated. He already has an ideology and isn't interested in facts or ideas that may contradict his deeply held views. BTW, the word terrorism has become (maybe always was) a political term. Why was Boston terrorism and Newtown not? Mostly because Newtown was committed by a crazy Christian with guns. Crazy Christians with guns are a large political constituency in America and have lots of political clout. Crazy Muslims with bombs, not so much.

Who is "they"? You mean like Timothy McVeigh? Or like the people who pull the trigger on drone atttacks? Or the people who dropped the bombs that fried hundreds of thousands at Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Please explain to us who "they" are. Some of us aren't as sure as you how to differentiate between good violence and bad violence.

Oh, please. Another takeoff of "They hate us for our freedom"???? Is anyone seriously stupid enough to believe this nonsense? Reducing people to evil carictures may be good politics but it won't get us any closer to resolving the issues. War on terror. War on drugs, Cold war. These were/are all wars in the Orwellian sense. They were necessary to unite the people against a common enemy. Whether the enemy really existed is secondary. The first casualty of war is the truth.

These ads are so low they're beneath contempt.

Israel would love peace if it gets to dictate the terms. At the moment, it's building settlements on stolen land.

This is awesome. I've been terrified that our coasts were not safe from derelict rusting hulks adrift on the oceans but now I can sleep nights knowing our navy can deal with them.

Would it help if we understood what we were defending it from?

The US is in a position where it both must and cannot make drastic cuts to military spending. If it doesn't, its fiscal position will continue to swirl down the metaphorical toilet bowl. If it does, the hacking will result in a recession that will send its fiscal position down the metaphorical toilet bowl. Also, bear in mind that military spending is a mechanism to allow the government to subsidize industry R&D (public investment for private profit) to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. What happens to that yankee ingenuity when Uncle Sam stops footing the bill? Until the economic structures start to be built on reality, the US has a bleak future. And the rest of the world too.

I'm not a huge fan of Justin but I'd take just about anything over Chairman Harper and his merry band of crooks and thugs.

It isn't ridiculous in the least. The environment existed before we were here and will exist after we're gone. And if we continue present behaviour, we will be gone sooner rather than later. Yes, the economy does make real things that we need. And there is nothing wrong with it, in moderation. However, when you add up nuclear weapons and basketballs and sugar cubes and private yachts and investment banking and pedicures into this one big thing called a GDP, you lose track of what's needed. And then when you prioritize this one big thing over everything else, including the biosphere on which we all rely, that's a very bad trade. I'm sure it's much easier to debate with someone when you invent what they say rather than actually reading what they wrote. I never said the economy doesn't matter.

That's the wrong question. There can't be a single stopper. Contrary to what economists imply when they jumble everything into the GDP, not all economic development is equal. Growing food for starving people cannot be on the same moral plane as creating nuclear weapons. Creating new software is much more environmentally benign than making tires to be used in monster truck races. We don't need a single stopper but we do need limits defined by scientific consensus. Well, too late. There are already 7 billion people. However, we can (and must) agree to limit the effects by changing the way we live and setting reasonable limits. I'm sure you do what you can. Individually, most people can do better - live closer to work, drive less, drive smaller vehicles, live in a smaller house, buy less stuff, take fewer long-distance vacations.. However, I think that individual action will only take us so far. Political leadership is necessary. Policies of unlimited growth need to be replaced with policies of smart growth and morally defensible growth. Of course I see the problem. As I said earlier, we all do what we can. I think if the global catastophe is large enough to scare people but no so large to cause breakdown of society, we still have a chance.

I don't subscribe to this point of view. Money is an abstraction that can be created and destroyed with the stroke of a pen. Ecosystems are real and once destroyed, even with dedicated effort take decades or centuries to recover. You don't create balance by sacrificing real things for abstractions - you only create fantasy. A healthy environment can exist without an economy. An economy will not exist with an environment that can support healthy living.

And not just around here. Industry and its right-wing camp followers have successfully stereotyped anyone who speaks up for the environment as a fuzzy-headed sentimentalist who cares more for marmots and owls than people's well-being. They've convinced themselves (and the majority of people) that the economy pays for everything and that a healthy environment relies on a strong economy. When you break it down, the reasoning is so bizarre, you can hardly believe anyone would make the claim. First, environmentalism isn't just about marmots and owls, it's about clean air and fresh water and ecosystems so intricate that we're only beginning to understand them. It's about figuring out how close we are to the verge of collapse of the web of life and how that will affect the planet and its inhabitants, human and non-human. It's about having the humility to accept that our ability to affect the planet's systems may be rapidly exceeding our ability to control the results. We've already seen local disasters (like the infamous smogs over London and LA). Must we wait for a global catastrophe before we take action to limit our impacts globally? Second, let's talk about the economy, that great god before which we must sacrifice everything in the quest for more powerful pickup trucks with butt warmers and mobile phones with slightly better touchscreens. Even as the economy mistreats the people who feed it, casting them into lower-paying work with no benefits or security, its proponents scream ever louder for obeisance. But what is the economy? Well, the primary measure is GDP; and GDP is defined as the amount of money we collectively spend on stuff. It doesn't matter whether that stuff is education or video games or coffins or fighter jets or haircuts. It doesn't matter whether the stuff makes us better people or wastes our time or just clutters our houses. It doesn't matter if the stuff makes us happy or miserable. We just need to spend more every year so that the GDP goes up. The arguments for a strong economy are circular ones. We need to spend more money to keep the economy strong. We need a strong economy so people will have jobs. People need jobs so they can spend more money. People need to spend money to keep the economy strong. And so on. Environmentalists are the realists in this equation. Economy boosters are the fuzzy-headed ones.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The technology is mostly there and advancing; but the infrastructure will cost billions. In this era of "good government = no government", who will prime the pump?

It's all true. Sorry. They are cost-effective and would be in use today if fossil fuels had to bear the full cost of their use. Our kids will pay the price so that we can have cheap gas for the hummer.