ReeferMadness

The smart one was the one that only lasted one term. Every time I think about the bushes, I can't help but remember this movie clip from Smokey and the Bandit.

So, if they stopped the war on terror (on account of it just seems to be creating more terrorists), with the savings, they could cut each of them a cheque for a 100 grand and still save money.

You said this: I'm not sure that's true. It would depend on how you define the problem and whether you're talking about all of the US involvement.

A brutal dictator that was supported by who exactly?

And you know that how exactly? The "war on terror" has been going on almost 3 times as long as WWII. It's cost hundreds of thousands of lives and cost trillions of dollars. It's destroyed the infrastructure of two countries - now they're working on the third. So.... tell me again how we can't afford to help refugees.

Yup. Greens normally get a lower percentage of the vote than the polls indicate and I've heard people say this is because their support is soft. However, I think the real level of support won't be known unless and until we get PR. Strategic voting changes everything.

Huh I guess everyone can go home then.

Yeah. And look how well that turned out.

This type of arrogance not only makes for bad public policy, it makes for bad science. Science does not present a black and white world but rather a world of probabilities. Anything we think we know today could be found to be wrong tomorrow. Based on past history, I can confidently predict that many of the prevailing views of today's science will turn out to be incomplete, misdirected or, in some cases, just plain wrong. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of medicine where there is still so much to be learned. So, this approach of browbeating and insulting people who don't see things like you do is unfounded, even in science. And even if the science were more mature, people have a right to decide what is best for them. Good public policy is informed by science but not dictated by science. Policy deciders should take a risk management approach and consider the risks/benefits and probabilities to the public of a given approach. But, to the greatest possible extent, that shouldn't preclude personal choice. Examples: In the case of climate change, science has determined that there is a significant likelihood that bad things are going to happen and many of the scenarios suggest that the outcomes could be pretty severe. Prudent public policy would be to pursue policies that would be to curtail C02 emissions in a way that didn't seriously impact quality of life. The thing about global warming is that it's a public atmosphere so this is not just a matter of personal choice. In the case of fluoridation, cavities are not a communicable disease. So, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether the perceived benefits are worth the perceived risks. That's called informed consent. I know people who are anti-vaccination and are into all sorts of therapy that I consider to be nutty. But a big part of the reason this community exists (and seems to be growing) is that science isn't humble about its own failings and has not been forthcoming about its own limitations. Medical science can describe its medications as "safe and effective" but too often, practical experience is that it is at best one of them and at worst, neither. You can't bully this group out of existence. A better approach would be to engage them in an adult discussion and try to take a more risk-managed approach to alternative therapies. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the details in your post because of thread drift. Each of the areas is big enough for its own thread. I can discuss them on separate threads - but only if you're going to bring an open mind.

Good. So do I. Bin Laden was not Taliban. He was Al Qaeda. He had a ragtag army in the middle of nowhere. Look at what ISIS is trying to do right now. They're trying to control the entire Muslim world. That's what bin Laden probably wanted. If you think Dyers was advising that, you'll need to point out where. I can't speak for Dyers but I believe he would say that the smart thing to do would have been to treat it as a crime instead of a war. You need to go back and look at the history. It was the US and Pakistan that helped create the problem by arming Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. Then 911 happened and the US invaded Afghanistan. Then, bizarrely, the US decided to attack Iraq. And with each action, terrorism continued to get worse and worse. If the British bombed and treated Northern Ireland as the west treated Afghanistan, then maybe you would see what the IRA was capable of. You don't fight terrorism by bombing the sh*t out of a country. You fight it by creating an environment where the local people can resolve their differences and build a peaceful society. So. The war on terror has gone on almost 3 times as long as WWII, has killed hundreds of thousands of people and, according to Dyer, has cost the US 4.4 trillion dollars. And there is no end in sight. Does that sound like a winning strategy to you? And Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Ottawa gunman, claimed that his actions were retaliation for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. But more to the point, why should the burden of proof be on those of us who want peaceful solutions? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on people whose first instinct to every international problem is to start shooting? Do you have any proof that the war against ISIS is going to work any better than the rest of the war on terror? Or is this just a never-ending conflict?

Well, I think you should immediately write Forbes Magazine and Dow and give them the benefit of your brilliance. It's clear that you don't need any links or references because you just know everything.

So, I'm not a military historian. But Gwynne Dyer is. And here is his analysis. And how do you deal with terrorism?

I see Stephen Harper is pretty much down to his base. No wonder they screen people before they let them in.

Solar farms seem to me like the type of thinking that could only come from utility companies. Let's dedicate a whole bunch of land to only one thing and generate power miles away from where anyone uses it. And that way we can keep it all under our control. You're right, it's a lot like hydro. Rooftop solar seems like a better way to go. You're taking space that is already wasted and turning it into something useful. You're generating power where it's needed and you already have power lines running to the site. Utilities aren't crazy about it because they don't like to lose control to the homeowners. Sux for them. Personally, I like the idea of solar shingles. Everyone has to replace their roof sooner or later and as the technology gets adopted, the prices will drop. .

The Liberals were cowards. I think Chretien likely would have decriminalized at least and maybe legalized but was afraid of the response from the Americans. The current crop have no such excuse as the states are way ahead of us now.

Chris Alexander embarrassed himself on national television by blaming his government's inaction on the media. Seriously. This guy is a minister?

You can see why it's so hard for alternative energies to make any inroads. People come with their biases and assumptions. They bring no research or information, only their closed minds and preconceived notions. Great debate, everyone.

To hear the breathless hyperbole of those that are fixated on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you might think that was actually true. And yet, it turns out it's not. Maybe if you work hard, one day you can be as smart as a two by four.

I've helpfully removed the word socialist since it's not a word I use to describe myself. And since you're clearly using it as an epithet, it could get you kicked. You're welcome. I've never heard anyone say that we're under no threat although I have heard it said (and I agree) that law-and-order types like the Conservative government inflate and hype the danger to support their regressive policies. Also, the more we participate in pointless and destructive exercises like the the wars in the middle east, the more of a target we become.

I expect the reason is that the Liberals actually instituted a good campaign finance law and the Conservatives successfully turned the public against it. It's not easy to educate the public on complex issues. Democracy is tough.

One of the big reasons is that the electric utilities don't encourage them because they don't make money from solar. And in Canada, the current federal government thinks its job is to be a cheerleader for the fossil fuel industry.

You're saying that nuclear power plants are not a potential terrorist target?

I get tired of this nonsense from nuclear energy apologists. Those plants aren't safe but these ones here are perfect. Japan is a technologically advanced democracy. If their nuclear energy industry lied to them, chances are ours is lying to us. Nuclear energy is inherently centralized, dangerous and expensive. It produces dangerous waste, requires huge infrastructure and once built represents a tempting target for terrorists. By contrast, solar is inherently scalable (which is why it's hated by the electricity industry) and relatively safe. An electric grid powered by rooftop solar and wind and backed up by natural gas would provide a distributed, redundant, scalable energy system. Battery technology advances will eventually make storage possible and the natural gas backup will be unneeded. What about them? Similar to fusion, there is great fanfare about how they will save the world. But curiously, there aren't any, at least not commercially.

It doesn't matter. Most people will buy from the liquor store, just like most people buy liquor there now. Plus, there will be serious savings in terms of law enforcement as well. Organized crime will take a big financial hit.

You're changing the subject. We were discussing what happened at Fukushima, not a normally functioning plant.