PocketRocket

No but it seems like we could be talking about a football game where you are down 20-23 at half time, as all that is required is to ask to die, two times in ten days, no doctors neccasary buckshot will do. Common, if the terminally i'll want to go, let them, but if your 18 year old son's girlfriend broke up with him and he is so heart broken to the point that he requests to die 2 times in ten days, should I grab my gun and shoot him for you, or will you put him out of his never ending missery? Hiya, SLAVIK44. No offense, but I think you're taking this way out of context. It is, after all, called "Euthanasia". Sometimes also called "Assisted Suicide". If your 18-year old son wants to kill himself, he doesn't need any help. Like so many other kids, he can figure it out for himself. I don't see anyone else who has had this misunderstanding. I don't believe the bill would legalize killing a perfectly healthy human just because they asked you to. If this concerns you so much, why not try find a link to the text of the bill???

I have to ask this question; why did they take him off life support??? If he was lucid when they brought him in, life support applied at 5AM, perhaps by 7AM they thought he'd be fine without LS??? Do you have any more details on this case???

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, if you're looking for spin, how about this. I noticed that Pollution Watch took their Canadian measurements from Environment Canada. I also noticed that in the article you cited, no mention was made of where they got their American statistics. From the US government??? The EPA??? Well, either way we have to consider that the EPA's report last year was strongly, shall we say, "edited" before it was allowed to be released for public consumption. The EPA, upon presenting their annual report, was told eaxcatly HOW the White House wanted them to re-word their report on air emmisions and possible contributions to global warming. (Can't find the link to that particular bit right now, but there's plenty of others) This is not the first time the Bush Admin has "muzzled" the EPA. Here are a few examples..... The first details muzzling of EPA reports of possible danger from 9/11 fallout.... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html The second ( http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs...ease_FINAL3.doc ) has a few statements, quoted below, which show more of the same...... And more of the same..... http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record.asp So, in a nutshell, you have cited an organization whose mandate is to reduce pollution, IN CANADA, as a source. Therefore, they would have an interest in showing Canada in an unfavorable light. That organization used materials provided by Environment Canada, which has NOT been reported to have been "muzzled" by the Canadian government. That same organization did NOT reveal its sources for the supposed improvements in the USA. IF those sources were the US government, or even the EPA, then the source must be held as suspect because of the nature of the manipulation of the EPA's findings and reports in recent years. Well, you did say you wanted spin

OMG, a sensible post!!!! Congratulations in advance, Grandma!!!! ( No offense intended, I figured I'd just give you a leg-up on the upcoming new moniker )

I think it is safe to assume that we are speaking of cases in which someone is terminal. But perhaps I should not make assumptions, especially since I showed disapproval of doing so in my previous post. Okay. How about taking someone (who would otherwise be terminal) off life support??? Is that "killing" them, or simply "letting them go"??? Well, is the axe-murderer terminal??? Has he asked to be "let go"??? (BTW, I have no problem with capital punishment if guilt is proven BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT. My problem would be if someone were excecuted, then later found to be innocent. Cases like Guy Paul Moran show that wrongful conviction can easily occur.) Many people are "afraid" of what Bush is doing. Many also fear for the future of their country/world/environment etc. But this is a different sort of fear than a personal fear of death or bodily harm, or in this case, slow loss of life preceded by possible immobility and loss of dignity and ultimately, self. We are not speaking of a football game wherein you and your team are down 56-3 at the half. We are speaking of someone who is terminal, possibly brain-dead, or any number of incremental mixes of the two. To rephrase what I said earlier, if I'm a drooling, brain-dead mess on life support after some accident, then switch me off.

Why don't you make a "living will"? How do you know I haven't??? You are making assumptions. If we stipulate that I have not made such a will, then very possibly chicken, yes. But that is not really relevant to the thread, is it?? Not a lot of people are in a rush to recognize, let alone hasten, their own mortality.

I, as many others, dislike questions which are "leading". You state that the addict is "well known", but most often, people who are not involved with drugs are not aware who is or is not an addict. Is this question meant to stipulate that both of the potential donors were aware of the man's addiction??? If so, that is not made clear. #1: The addict killed himself (Unless it's a CSI show where someone may have held him and forceably injected) #2: This is a gray area because, as stated above, it was not stipulated that BOTH MEN were aware of the addiction. If they were, then it would partially depend on the amount handed to the addict. If the guy gave him $1.00 to buy a coffee, I would say that constitutes compassion. Likewise if he gave him $5.00 and pointed to a deli and said "Buy yourself a sandwich", or some such. (I would doubt that either man would hand over $50.00 and say "Go get wasted") Interesting side story in this vein. I was once accosted by a guy (won't mention race) near a liquor store. He reeked of booze. Asked for a buck for a coffee. I refused to give it to him. I did, however, walk over to the Tim Horton's next door, and returned with a coffee, which I handed to him. I got roundly cursed out. Obviously it was not coffee he wanted.

I've heard, on CBC Radio, news of the Iraqi constitution, and the voting, for a few days now. Yesterday it was mentioned yet again. I don't know which CBC Radio news show you're listening to, but if it is (as SPARHAWK suggested) the 5-minute-on-the-hour newscast, then all you get is the MOST VERY CURRENT news, and only a brief snippet of that. Even on that short newsbreak, I heard something about the Iraqi constitution a couple days ago.

We are speaking of the same "landmark" which, as discussed elsewhere, allows the stoning of women???

Nourishment for a fictional computer from a science-fiction satire??? I should hope so

Cool. And look, that word was perfectly easy to understand, even though I reversed the first and second "o".

A beefed-up military would be utterly useless in countering a threat to a domestic target in Canada. I mean how much more beefed-up can a military get than that of the USA??? What did it stop on 9/11??? Not one, but two targets successfully hit. Another near-miss, allegedly averted by the passengers in the plane headed for the White House. All this within a matter of several minutes. Meanwhile, the highly-vaunted US Air Force was doing what??? Nothing useful, because they were unaware that anything was happening until far too late. A beefed-up intelligence is what is needed to counter a domestic threat, and even that would be hit-or-miss depending on how close-mouthed the plotters are. But if the attack took the form of the recent attacks in London, ie; individuals packing explosives in a busy, pedestrian-filled area, then the possibility of prevention drops to near-zero. When you consider the fact that anyone with access to the internet can find recipes for high-impact explosives which can be made from items you can buy at Canadian Tire, then the probability of stopping a determined bomber is very low, and a strong military will play little or no part in preventing such an attack. All that being said, I am still in favor up dramatically increasing our military spending, but not for any of the reasons so far given in this thread.

Just like all Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. etc. are potential terrorists. Perhaps we should ask them to leave too? I don't think you can logically use this argument. There is no great revolutionary zeal today among other major world religions. This is particularly true of Christianity, which is largely westernised and has acquired the the civility of modern western culture. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, things in Ireland have quieted down in the past few years, but as little as 20 years ago I would not have wanted to vacation in Belfast. Catholics and Protestants bombing each other, including bombs set off in London. Christians are not so civilised as we like to make out, and Christianity's history is positively appalling, just like so many other religions.

Sounds like something Michael Moore would say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Does that make it untrue??

I want to be Minister of Pubic Affairs (No, that's not a typo)

Well, a "hi" right back at ya, ERR. Wow. I knew that geothermal heating was a good idea, but I was totally unaware of how efficient it is. Thanks for the info. I would install this myself except for one problem, I cannot dig anything like this on my property because there are mines beneath me. It was a stipulation when I bought my house. The upside is i got a great old house at a fantastic price. My mortgage payments are considerably less than most people's car payments. As for the others, a friend and I have been looking into a windmill scheme. Convert most of the fixtures in the house to 12V. Run a windmill using a car alternator. Set up a bank of car batteries, anywhere from 12-20 of them, wired parallel. It wouldn't take me completely off the hydro grid, but I estimate it would reduce my hydro consumption to around 40% of what I use presently. I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly. Solar panels are still pretty pricy, but I'm hoping they'll come down in time.

If we're looking at reduction of fossil-fuel usage, at least for electrical generation, there are several other avenues to explore, none of which have the risk factor involved with nuclear energy, nor the pesky problem of what to do with the by-products. Wind farming; we have huge empty spaces in this country. Windmills are relatively cheap to erect, and require little maintenance over the long term. I know of a large farm in Northern Ontario that has about 20 windmills. The cows graze right underneath them, quite undisturbed. These mills not only cover all the electrical requirements of the farm, they actually produce a suplus which goes back into the grid at a small profit to the owner. Initial investment was pretty big, but I'm told they paid for themselves within 12 years. Solar energy; Currently the state of solar electrical generation is still in it's infancy. Put a few more bucks into R&D, tell the science boys what you want, and let 'em work. They'll find ways to increase efficiency. But again, there are huge tracts of land which could be used to harvest solar energy. Every rooftop could be outfitted with solar cells, thus reducing the energy requirements of each building. Another area that has been overlooked in this thread is home heating. Whether you heat your house with oil, gas, or electricity, most of it results from burning fossil fuels. Any engineering student can tell you that heat can be produced anywhere there is a temperature gradient (Not being an engineering student, I'm not exactly sure of the nuts and bolts of it). Basically, if you sink a pipe deep into the ground, something like a drilled well, you can pump a liquid through the pipe and harvest heat from within the earth. All you need is a small temperature gradient, on the order of 1 or 2 degrees, and this can be done. Of course in Canada, with our bitterly cold winters, we'd get a far bigger gradient than this. An added benefit is this system can be used in reverse and you can use the same gradient to cool your house in summer. Lots of options available, not only nuclear. The problem is that neither government nor big business wants to upset the status quo which is currently putting huge sums of money into the coffers of both.

Now, can we get back to something productive like the Kimmy Party Agenda???

I believe you're correct. I've heard that you don't even need to know how to spell to enlist. Well, with only grade 4, where else could Bubba learn to "be all that he can be"??? And pay taxes. Hmmm. Did you remember to take that anti-paranoia pill with your morning coffee???

That won't happen unless he starts teaching that dinosaurs were gay, and that that was okay. Hmmm, reminds me of the old joke about the gay and lesbian dinosaurs, respectively; the Megasore-ass and the Lickalotapuss.

Oh well. The Rhino's are gone. Perhaps it's time to "horn in" on their racket.

Government money was needed there before the crisis... and maybe it would have been a handful of dead.... The US government should be held accountable for all the deaths and loss that could have been prevented, had their policies focused on the needs of Americans and national security instead of spending the country's resources on acquiring acces to Iraqi oil for the companies that the Bush administration will be working for in a few years.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much as I agree that the government could have, and should have, done MUCH more, we can hardly blame this solely on the current administration. The issue of the levees should have been addressed years ago. Decades. New Orleans has been a living, breathing crap-shoot since its founding. When you live below sea-level, in a hurricane-prone area, it only makes sense to build your levees as high and strong as possible. This should not have even been an issue. It only became one because of the short-sightedness of ALL administrations, past and present.

So the strike is over. Has anyone heard when regular broadcasting will resume???

Good Morning, Thelonious: No worries. The crackheads are killing themselves. The process simply takes a bit longer.

Okay. THELONIOUS invoked a Monty Python line, which reminds me of something else which is quite Python-esque. You've all heard of The Beatles (of course). Eric Idle and a few others of the Python crew, along with several rock stars doing cameo appearances, and several of the original Saturday Night Live crew, put together a movie that's a satire of the Beatles story. It's called "The Rutles.....All You Need Is Cash". How is this related to The Kimmy Party???? Well, I'm getting there. Some of you may recall John and Yoko's famous "Sleep-In" or whatever they called it, wherein the two of them stayed in bed, in their pajamas, all day, while their bedroom was open to the press. It was held to promote peace !?! In any case, "The Rutles" spoofs this as well. In the movie, the "John" character, and his girlfriend, hold a "Shower-In", where the two of them sit in a bathtub, under a running shower, holding court for the press. The John character explains that "Civilisation is nothing more than an effective sewage system, and so, by the use of plumbing, we hope to demonstrate this to the world". I think you should adopt this as the party slogan, KIMMY.