Tawasakm

Unfair? I don't believe so. It seemed to me that it was more of a deflection than it was an attempt to address any problem directly. After I've had some sleep I'll come back and tell you exactly how I would choose to approach each problem (not as an expert in such things I must point out).

You are probably pulling that question out of your arse because you believe I am being racist and wish to reflect that back on to me. The way to disarm racist assumptions which arise from information gathering activities such as this is to properly follow through and gain the FULL picture of what is actually happeneing. The information is concerning and indicated a need to know more. Personally I doubt that following the trail will lead to some kind of 'blacks are inferior savages' ephinany. I think it would lead to other things completely. Things which can't be dealt with without putting them under a real spotlight. I believe the reason this kind of information should be gathered is for the purpose of finding ways to change them in future. I don't like Canada's approach which does not allow such information to be gathered or made public - probably because they don't want to give fuel to the lictors of the world. It denies any opportunity to work on problems which do exist and can create real misery for some however.

Due to currently fatigue my wording is alot more lazy than normal (possibly my thought process is too). I should say that it supports a general contention that rape and sexual assault may in fact be committed by people perceived as black to a degree that is statistically more significant than people perceived as white according to information gathered by the US Department of Justice. I was only thinking of the general contentions regarding the races of victimisation and whether or not it may be perceived that there is more white on other races crime than there actually is. This data provides some heft to that point of view. Don't confuse me with the likes of lictor who regards other skin colours as genetically inferior. I think its important when 'statistic sifting' to withhold value judgements and follow the information where it leads. It does not necessarily lead to a place where black people are more violent or predatory. It may lead to some completely different revelations. But it is important to follow it rather than disregard it. This is really what my tired mind has been trying to say.

Actually my bad - I skimmed table 42 way too fast. It says exactly what Kimmy says it does. American Woman: Perhaps most rapes do go unreported but that is no reason to disregard recorded information. If there are gaps in the knowledge (including incidence of crime, the causes of crime and the reasons why so many crimes go unreported as some examples) then of course they should be filled but the information that has been gathered is the starting point on where to look next. While there may be much that is unknown it does not alter what is known. Seems to me like it is a problem which must be looked at holistically. There may be explanatory factors such as you suggest but its not enough to theorise about something that seems 'reasonable' to an individual. This is why this report should not be disregarded. This is why is should be faced full on and receive follow through as to gaining more concrete information.

It is also worth noting that they have this disclaimer: "Note: Due to changes in methodology, the 2006 National Crime Victimization rates are not comparable to previous years and cannot be used for yearly trend comparisons. However, the overall patterns of victimization at the national level can be examined" Which addresses the obvious concerns people have over there being different methodology. Edited to correct typo

Table 46 is more relevant since it includes information on perceived race of offenders. The figures are there in black and white.

No replies and no interest. Intriguing.

Faggot: –noun 1. a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc. 2. a bundle; bunch. 3. a bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded, hammered, or rolled together at high temperature. 4. bouquet garni. –verb (used with object) 5. to bind or make into a fagot. 6. to ornament with fagoting. While this is an accurate definition of faggot I don't think most people would be confused about what it means now: –noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faggot Despite the original meaning of the word I don't think it takes away from the fact that everybody knows what it means in the here and now in todays world. You can factually state that it orginally referred to a bundle but that does not change the fact that it is now primarily a derogatory term for homosexuals. In a similar vein I think everyone knows what anti-semitism means in the here and now regardless of your non-contemporary but still technically accurate and valid definition and use of the word. What everyone knows: –noun a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti%20semite Language evolves and shifts over time. Whats the use in trying to go back in time to an earlier definition and trying to reclaim 'ownership' of the word to adhere to that older definition? Unless you want to find a reason to remove the current (and correct) negative loading associated with the term so it can be removed from debate. As in trying to argue that nobody can be anti-semetic unless they are against everyone in that language group so nobody can be anti-semitic. Weak.

Thanks for that. I'm glad to hear it works but it still seems a little strange to me not to directly elect your own senators. To each their own though!

Stupid question from a foreigner here. How are your senators appointeed? We elect our senators here in Australia. It sounds like that has not been the case there. I am just curious.

First of all I extend my condolences to actual friends and family of Michel Jackson. My first thought at his death was that everyone was probably better off - including him. My second thought was annoyance at the obsessive media coverage. There are plenty of other things I consider to be more newsworthy. I have this gut feeling that two days ago most people thought he was (or had become) a weird little twerp who probably fiddled around with kids. Now that he is dead there seem to be masses who love him again. Whoever he was in life does not change because of death. His friends and family are surely grieving but I don't understand why so many others are.

I love the irony

Fosters is not popular here! The power of advertising I guess. Alot of the beers that are popular here are imported from Europe so I guess you will have tried them. Popular home made beers would be Tooheys Extra Dry (get the platinum for something better), Cascade and Hahn premium and Victoria Bitter, are some examples of popular beers.

I do actually realise this . I was responding to a poster who is titled as 'resident left wing yank'. Australian english is much like Canadian or UK english - which I believe I said. Its pretty interesting that newspapers would fight against that. Thats something I've definitely never known. It would probably annoy the hell out of me if Aussie newspapers started doing that.

Now that truely was very interesting. I wonder if I will see a major shift in world power in my life time. Thanks again.

I did some basic psych units at uni some years back. One thing I learned is that the definition of intelligence is a little fluid - there is no complete universal definition. The purpose of the IQ test is to determine academic ability. And it does it well. However 'academic ability' covers only a small part of the broader concept of intelligence - and the IQ test is NOT meant to determine anything but academic ability. Having a below average IQ, contrary to popular opinion, does not mean below average intelligence. It is purely meant to determine academic ability. The ability to compose music is just one example of another aspect of intelligence. The ability to start with a windscreen washing business (just you and a bucket by the side of the road) and work your way up to be an entrepeneur and millionaire with no formal education is intelligence. There are massively intelligent people who have trouble learning to read and write who can utilise their intelligence to change the world around them. My IQ is above average but, believe me, I can have trouble putting my shoes on the right feet in the morning. Intelligence is a very broad concept - never think you may lack it because one test of niche capabilities may be a little low. And when I speak of intelligence I am never speaking of IQ.

Yeah they teach 'Australian' here just like they teach 'American' in the US and 'Canadian' in Canada... We all have our own dialects of english. Ours is closer to the UK and Canadian english. Where you would spell 'color' we would spell 'colour' etc. But to answer your question: we only learn Australian

I can't seriously believe that any president swatting a fly on camera is newsworth or comment worthy at all. Anyone swatting a fly can be quite likely to make a little throw away comment about it. I don't see how it was considered worthy of braodcast later though. And now here I am commenting on the deeply political issue of swatting a damn fly.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is known to be an advocate of China. His belief is they are taking two steps forward for every step backward. He acknowledges humans rights abuses in China but thinks they are moving forward faster than they are moving backward. I wonder how true this is. I sincerely hope he is right - since China has a large role in the future of this world.

I don't understand the uniformity of such laws. I don't, for example, see a workplace as being the same as an x rated comedy club. What is appropriate behaviour in one may not be appropriate in another. I think we expect different standards of behaviour and control in a school than in a pub. Different situations, to some extent, must surely engender variations in standards. If a comedian was in a restaurant eating a meal and mouthed off this way it is a completely different thing to doing so in response to hecklers in an x rated comedy venue. Is it distateful? Maybe it is but I am not convinced it should be subject to modification or state oversight. I firmly believe anti discrimantion and anti hate speech laws are necessary. I also firmly believe that a one size fits all approach will merely create different kinds of inequities. In different setting the rules, in my view, should shift and the laws should in some way seek to reflect this. My two cents.

Perhaps if we're not prepared to really use force to create power shifts we should use our resources differently. There is a car called the Honda Civic which has an onboard electric generator. It sucks in air and separates the oxygen which it combines with hydrogen. It has few moving parts, does not use batteries (an environmental problem with most electric cars) and its only byproduct is water. It fuels up on hydrogen the same way a car is fueled with petrol. You go to a service station, you open the fuel door, you pump it in from the bowser. Its a great system - since everything about it allows us to go on as normal. The first electric car I am aware of that works as a normal every day car now does. However I understand that Hydrogen is a little tricky and expensive to collect. Apparently it is the most abundant atom in the universe but the difficult and expense comes from separating it from whatever it is attached to. So what if we pour resources into solving that problem instead? Solve the problem of sourcing and distributing hydrogen and reduce our need for oil. It wouldn't happen quickly of course but the kind of money and resources poured into Iraq, for example, could really speed things up. The economies of the middle east would weaken and so would their capacity to cause mischief. Of course this could lead to more death and suffering over there then a stepped up war would - but our hands would be clean and our emissions would be reduced.

I used to be a fairly regular poster here a few years ago and left because of frustration over what I thought was inane posting. In hindsight I think I over reacted and I should have a thicker skin. I know exactly what you are talking about and I know it can hijack threads. However there are plenty of intelligent thoughtful posters here and it is worth (in my opinion) wading through the dross to get to the good stuff. These days there is also an ignore function so it is possible for you to ignore (as a random example - benny and oleg) and focus on others. Even many of the people we think hold idiotic views can come up with some stuff in the end which can stop and make you think. Many - not all. PS There are two people on my ignore list - and I didn't think I'd ever use the function.

The main purpose of this movie was to 'reboot' Star Trek. What with all the many series that have been made the overall story line has become very complex and the need to maintain continuity makes it dofficult to make anything new - and probably requires too much exposition and so makes it dull. The reboot resets the storyline by creating an alternate timeline. Now anything that is made can be fresh - and doesn't need to zip up with hundreds of episodes from different series and all the other movies. All it needs to do is capture the 'essence' of the characters and the series and present them in a fresh way for a contemporary audience. It does seem a bit weird that they all get out of their last year in the academy and so quickly gain senior positions on the Federation Flagship. But I guess that is a problem created by wanting to make a prequel. Its interesting to make a backstory for all the old favourites - Kirk, Bones, Spock, Uhura, Scotty et al. However those characters are already popular within the roles that they occupied in the series. I don't think an audience of trek fans would have been patient with them taking a couple of movies or more to work their way up the ranks. The audience is already sold on Kirk as captain and Scotty as chief engineer etc (btw you get to see the previous Chief Engineer die in the movie - I think you missed it).

I am most certainly interested

I hear what you are saying and I know my surmise may be incorrect. His views appear one sided to me. One sided in a fashion which is consistent with someone who has gained his view from a state controlled information system. A nation which has alot more open debate and sources of information seems to me to have a different 'flavour' to opinion pieces. Its merely a thought I am throwing out there in response to repeated unanswered question directed at bjre as to why he would choose to live in Canada as that choice seems wildly inconsistent with his ideology and views. Someone who chose to leave China for a western life, even if still ardently nationalistic toward the PRC, would be more likely to at least be asking some questions and gaining a different perspective.