fellowtraveller

Got to this thread late and dunno if it has been mentioned, but add Adaptation to the list of hated movies. It isn't the movie so much, it is Nicholas Cage in the movie that revolted me. I came to the theatre prepared to hate Meryl Streep as usual, but I came to realize just how awful Cage is about halfway through. Everything done since just reinforces how wooden and one dimensional this guy really is on screen. Streep was not bad, for a change as she was not the prime character and controlled her narcissim long enough to suppress the urge to preen and put on an accent. Two good things came of it: Chris Cooper again showed his consistent quality, and it was I think the first time I noticed Tilda Swinton, She is a bit of an acquired taste, but a really good actress.

[ That is surprising, getting raves...not from me. I'd rate Kids Are Alright as average, and in a surprising turn agree with the OP that the acting is better than the script. What is particularly tiresome is the archaic notion that marital strife would be different for a gay couple, or that their children would be less affected than straight couples offspring. 'Different ' is the wrong word, maybe 'interesting is a better one. This movie would be groundbreaking in 1985, today it rates a 'so what?'. What kind of ruined it for me for me was the action of Juliane Moores character, it did not ring true and neither did her guilty exposition after the dirty deed. Of all the good performances here, her lines were the least interesting and believable. What I did like was the director allowing Moore and Bening to look their age onscreen. They are still attractive women, but they have not been buffed and waxed for these roles. It is still worth renting , or wait for it on cable. Two movies I really liked lately: Get Low and Winters Bone.

Because the only negotiations that matter are between corporations or governments, and neither will cede their authority or interests to a mediator. Of course. And that is not an assumption. The only other possibility is mediation between individuals, and that mainly involves family law or minor civil disputes. I am sure the legal community would welcome the creation of another layer of billable hours between them and an adversary. Oh, the current layer between lawyers, the 'middle' is called the judicial system. The reason it is thyere is because their 'mediation' is binding. Anything non binding is a wank. Try again.

Imagine seeing the words Trudeau and corporate coexisting quietly in the same paragraph. It is a bit scary. All the high level negotiating corporations do is done by lawyers and execs. It would be extremely rare for a company to cede anything binding that involved money to an outsider. And if it doesn't involve money and lots of it, it won't matter in the corner offices. Please try again.

Two funniest things in this thread: 1. The movie review from a person who has not seen the movie. Those are always entertaining. 2. The comparison of Inception with Cats and Dogs. Oh, and the CGI in Inception is not intended to depict a 'real world', if you had the slightest clue about the movie, you'd know there are only a few minutes of 'real world'. The rest is a dream. Perhaps. I did not like the length of the film, and much was left unexplained. I did very much like the imagination of the enterprise, it was fresh and interesting, and not many movies can claim that. Of course, the lack of explanation/resolution was a strong point too...... not many movies where you leave the theater talking about what you had just seen, and arguing over what it meant. Perhaps it was ALL a dream......

This is at the very center of the ancient and little known Korean martial art of taekwondog.

I fail to see what is new or even mildly interesting in this stuff and the rest of the document, which was clearly written by a committee of consultants and corporate communications hacks.

You are assuming that sociology has a scientific base. I was cured of that assumption by attending sociology lectures and reading the textbooks. Both could be described as laughable, though I won't because it does an extreme disservice to professional comedians.

Easily accomplished by simply opeming the telecom industry to actual competition, which would lead to lower prices for Canadians, who pay far too much now and far more than other developed nations.I don't think the NDP has that in mind though, they want control and plenty of it.

You are not digressing, you are fantasizing. The CRTC is not and has never been anythiong remotely like 'independent'. Where would you get such a curious idea? As with any regulatory agency, its actions are defined by the policy of government. Always has been that way for the CRTC. Govt established legislation and regulatory framework, agency acts within that framework. What acts best for the consumer is the ability to nake reasonable choices for themselves, and the CRTC is a genrally a hindrance to that objective. I am an adult, there is no reason whatsoever for the CRTC to tell every radio staion what they can and cannot play on my behalf. There is no reason to restrict braodcast license beyond broad adherence to law and technical equirements. What the CRTC needs to be doing is controlling bandwidths and suignal strengths of whomever chooses to braodcast, not much more than that. Your comment on Faux News is astonishing in its naivete and inherent contradiction. Why should Fox News or any news outlet be regulated at all beyond legal and echnical requirements? What do you fear?

Well said. Social 'science' like sociology are little more than ideology.

What the CRTC has brought to me: 1. extremely high cell phone rates 2. extremely high cost cable services delivered by monopolies 3, relentless, enforced listening to Celine Dion, Bryan Adams and Loverboy as Canadian Content even though I have begged for mercy I think I am the victim here, not the CRTC

I noticed that Harper as abolished universal access to healthcare, repealed same sex marriage and banned abortion in the last couple of years. He is worse than Hitler, at least Hitler liked dogs. Harper is naturally anti -intellectual, since he has only a Grade 4 education himself and was raised by survivalists in a cave on Baffin Island.

1. 62%. Ignatieff could not run fast enough away from it then, and now. Or are you convinced the abrupt departure of Dion and the coronation of Ignatieff immediately after the coaltion debacle was pure coincidence? Of course you do believe that. 2. Explain 'great deal'. Specifically. Have the Coalition partners managed to delete every copy of that damning group photo or something? 3. Nobody except gives shit about the UK. It has nothing at all to do with us. 4. The only barking has been Iggy yipping at everybodys ankles. Is Layton still NDP leader? Haven't heard from him for a long time.

Some of us have noted a change in the last 20 years in regionalism. It is definitely greater now than ever, everybody sees the only way to get a nice slice of the pie is to fight hard for their share and more.

Speaking for Canada? No, just offering a scenario that is certainly possible- a party attaining a majority with little or no seats in Quebec. What possible reason would there be then for the grotesque imbalance in transfer payments to Quebec? No votes, no seats and billions going to a region not required for a majority... there would be little reason to keep paying them off. The next question would b for Quebec-what reason would there be for the Bloc to Quebec voters. The reason they are popular is not their separatist base, it is that they bring home the bacon to the province and always have. I respect the pragmatism of Quebec voters, they have done what worked for them and will again.

Quebec is certainly not irrelevant to the mainstream parties, but the circumstances where that could happen is not unimaginable. Separatism is on the backburner for now, yet Quebec still elects plenty of Bloc MPs because they have done their job in getting a disproportionate chunk of federal resources to the province. Should a party gain a majority or two without Quebec seats, there will surely be an examination of the financial balance sheet for the country, and Quebec will then have the choice of leaving or joining the flock again by electing mainstream MPs. In the first circumstance the Bloc would have succeeded in their primary goal and would play a large role in an independent Quebec, in the second their influence would be ended.

Link to your data on Harpers comments? Or is that the 'anecdotal' part of your analysis? Cons were polling 62% in the days after the coalition was featured heavily in the media, with three Canadian political leaders grinning ear to ear a few weeks after losing at the polls. I guess that means 62% of Canadians are nutters who barely have a toe hold on reality.

Links to Jeffrey Simpson at the Grope and Flail, links to Toronto Star articles. Same old tired Harper Eats Babies crap. zzzzzzzzzzzz

We could cal it Le Grande Coalition if you'd like. You do remember the Coalition, it was not that long ago.....

isn't that the same deficit Ignatieff insisted Harper create as part of The Great Coalition platform? Or is it another, more conveninet deficit?

I was researching something and came across an item that pretty well substantiates what you said. Quote A former top foreign affairs bureaucrat recently described Harper as "incurious about the world" when he became prime minister in 2006. Now, on the eve of the historic summits, the same bureaucrat says Harper has become a master of summit politics. Harper himself said the success of the G20 may be a more significant policy development for Canada than the Afghanistan mission. http://www.stthomast....aspx?e=2636424 With this new found knowledge and experience under his belt, Harper may be better prepared to go head to head with Ignatieff's international credentials on related issues. No doubt this will manifest itself in a future election campaign. Yep. Harper has feasted on and continues to dine on those that underestimate how quickly he learns.... His greatest failing is one he shares with Trudeau: hubris and ago.

Quite a few bars here don't allow Halloween masks at Halloween. People get shitfaced, know they are anonymous and go crazy.

The only circumstances where exposing your face is mandatory is where there is a security aspect that requires that your identity be positively confirmed: boarding planes, banking, traffic stops and so on. Everyhting else is just racist claptrap. If you ban head coverings for Muslims, you'd also have to ban anything with a hood like a parka or sweatshirt.

Actually, the environment for nailing banks with a fat tax was ideal, they are the perfect bogeyman in several places and particularly US and UK. The tax could easily be sold as a punitive measure, given that the actions of banks in those countries are seen to be partially to blame for the economic problems. The optics are and were good. But the reality is that any tax would simply end up being passed on to consumers, and that stark reality would negate any spin the G8 could generate initially. Just this once, don't let your partisan hatred interfere with your analytical prowess. Canadian financial systems and Harper have both gotten plenty of backslapping in the international press in the last year. You're just going to have to face the facts this time.Don't be a h8er, be a sk8er