Pangloss

I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much about Canadian politics as I do American, but I have been more or less following current events there. I have a friend who worked in the previous government (that was ousted by Paul Martin's), and he's been rather pleased the last few days, as one might imagine. The general political landscape is somewhat opposite of the US, as I understand it, so conservatives canucks generally have it a bit rougher than conservative Americans, I imagine. ;-) Please feel free to post your thoughts on the subject. I'm sure some of us will respond.

Well that first post ALSO contains a statement (which is probably why you just linked it instead of quoting it). But ok, that's easily addressed. That turns out not to be the case. Your second statement in this thread: And so my questions back to you are: 1) What does a country that is exporting four million barrels of oil per day (in addition to whatever their internal energy needs are!) need with nuclear power? 2) How do you respond to Iran's own statements that they believe it is their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, and various subleaders (like the powerful ayatollahs) have said in the past that they intend to become a nuclear power? They say that is not the case now, but does that not give the international community valid reason for concern? Again, the purpose of Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with electricity, but everything to do with a very different kind of "power". Now stop acting like Bill Clinton asking us to define "is", and stand behind what you wrote.

That turns out not to be the case. Your original statement: And so my questions back to you are: 1) What does a country that is exporting four million barrels of oil per day (in addition to whatever their internal energy needs are!) need with nuclear power? 2) How do you respond to Iran's own statements that they believe it is their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, and various subleaders (like the powerful ayatollahs) have said in the past that they intend to become a nuclear power? They say that is not the case now, but does that not give the international community valid reason for concern? Again, the purpose of Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with electricity, but everything to do with a very different kind of "power".

Oh yeah no question about it. If Iran does acquire nukes, all bets are off as far as Israel is concerned. They have their causus belli. That's the real stupidity of the Iranian president's statement.

I do too, but that particular joke's a little dated. ;-) 5614: What I mean is that if Israel was going to strike they would have done so instead of issuing the statement that they did (with that particularly strong rhetoric).

(chuckle) Very funny, Swansont.

My second post (#18 above), even including the final sentence, had nothing at all to do with you, Nevermore. It was an observation about the larger political issues in play in international politics and how the present situation reflects history. If you're referring to the previous post (#17), most of that is a direct refutation of your position, and the last line, again, is not about you. I don't see why I can't be allowed to make an observation about the world's tendency to blame Bush for the world's ills, and meanwhile let another Hitler rise to power. That's my point of view, and it's as valid as yours. Rather than shooting the messenger, why don't you try and answer my question, and address the flaws I pointed out in your premises? As for 'civilized discussion as to weather [sic] or not the U.S. will invade Iran', might I remind you of your notion of what that means?

Look at these little gems from President Ahmadinejad, in the very same speach yesterday. And here's a doozy: "Le-ben-sraum! Le-ben-sraum!" (and the crowds go wild....) And you really gotta love this one: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-12/14/article04.shtml But hey, it's a good thing the world is so focused on how evil George Bush is. That's the politically aware western world for you -- we sure don't let anything slip by us, no sir!

If he did, would you believe him? And if not, then why present that to us as evidence that there is no nuclear weapons program? There are three other flaws in your premises: 1) The attention focused on Iranian nuclear weapons is largely a European cause, not an American one. The EU, not the US, is leading the diplomatic efforts to put a stop to it. They're actually not getting enough diplomatic help from America, and have been asking for more. 2) The Iranians are saying that they feel they have a right to construct nuclear weapons, and have declared many times over the last few years their intention to do exactly that. They trumpet this intention on their state-run television. It's one of the political positions used by the ayatollahs to sustain nationalist sentiment which they use to maintain their hold on power in the face of a growing opposition movement. (And make no mistake: That's what all of this is really about.) 3) Iran exports 4 million barrels of oil per day. The Iranian people need a zealot-controlled nuclear power generation system like Florida needs more hurricanes. People need to get off this "any bad news from the Middle East means Bush must be about to invade another country" nonsense. It's completely damaging people's perspectives.

Not only that, but today he said in a speech that the Holocost was a myth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402403.html The key phrase in that statement being "live on state television". Shades of the Odessa Steps....

This is a popular component in the ongoing effort to demonize anybody who does not support the global warming position 100%. The implication is that anybody who asks any questions any aspect of the program must be a "global warming denier". Let me show you something: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22global+warming+deniers%22&btnG=Google+Search (That's 558 hits on the completely intact phrase "global warming deniers". It does not include variations on the theme.) Here's a blog entry using the phrase that was actually written by the Editor in Chief of Scientific American magazine' date=' John Rennie: http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/01/the_naked_truth.html And he's not talking about people who flat-out deny that it could possibly be happening. Oh no. He's talking about people who are "snippily arguing". That's right -- the editor in chief of Scientific American believes that if you question or inquire about global warming, you are a [i']Global Warming Denier[/i]. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. There is no group of people, no collection of individuals, there are no organizations, that are more opposed to free speech, personal liberty and individual choice than the very bastion of self-proclaimed defenders of those very things: the far left wing of American politics. It's their way or the highway, every bit as much as it is with the far right of American politics. So my question is this: Rather than ask "why people deny", perhaps you should really be asking why any sane person would label objective questioning and intelligent inquiry with a dirty word like "deny".

I was listening to a report on NPR yesterday afternoon about the piracy problem off the coast of Somalia. I didn't realize it has become to widespread and so dangerous to commercial shipping and travel in the region. According to the report, humanitarian groups in Somalia (which has been essentially government-less for 15 years now) are unable to get food shipments right now because of the problem, and it seems to be getting worse. And unlike that passenger ship we all heard about a couple of weeks ago, most freighters apparently can't outrun the pirates. I wonder if this might be a use of the US military that everyone would generally agree upon as a good idea, and in international best interests. It just seems like a perfect tasking for a Carrier Air Group and a small contingent of Marines, doesn't it? A chance to bring peace to a region without hurting innocent people, an opportunity to show benevolence and spend money where it counts, and heck, it's even a reasonably useful combat training opportunity for the troops. Sure sounds like a win-win to me. Thoughts?

There's an old saying that I don't recall the origin of: "They'll love us when we win." The idea being that you hate the people who freed you from the previous regime because things are tough and not getting better fast enough to feed your family, etc, but then later when you look back on things in retrospect, you remember that things were tough but you're more inclined to feel it was worth the effort. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it could be a factor in some folks' thinking.

Well I tend to take people at their word, so I appreciate the thought, but I'm not sure I approve of that implication. If the left is capable of making the distinction between opposing the death penalty and not supporting murder, then surely the right is capable of making the distinction between people who "oppose the death penalty but disapprove of murder", and, well, "complete idiots" (like the guy I quoted in Post #33). Anyway, like I said, I'm opposed to the death penalty, so the nitwit I quoted isn't having an impact on my overall opinion. I just thought it was a ridiculous thing for him to say.

Well that's a perfectly reasonable argument, not mind-boggling at all, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. I also agree with it to a large extent in terms of how it applies to many areas of the "war on terror". I just would not apply that specific reasoning to the specific case of armed sky marshals. I think there are other areas that are much more wasteful and pointless than spending money in an area where we factually know that a specific threat is possible. But I admit that you've given me a new angle to consider on the subject.

Rofl!

Interesting poll by ABC News, Time, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel (the oddest coalition of pollsters I've ever heard of). http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228 Some of the more interesting numbers: - More than 60% feel "very safe" in their own neighborhoods - 61% say security is good - Average household income up 60% over last 20 months - 70% of Iraqis view their own economic situation positively - 69% expect things to get better over the next year - 69% confident in Iraqi police - 57% prefer democracy over religious government, and that number is rising and the religious preference is falling On the down side: - Less than half (46%) say the country is better off now than it was before the war - Roughly half say it was wrong for the US to invade (a rising number) - While 71% say *they're* doing well, only 44% think things are going well for the country; 52% say "badly" - Roughly 2/3rds oppose US forces in Iraq (a rising number) - Half would like to see the US leave soon What these numbers say to me is that most of the partisan bickering you hear that trumpet specific numbers are deliberate straw men. Attemps to get you to ignore the big picture that they don't want you to see. That's true of both the Bush administration, which wants everything to look rosy, and the far left, which wants everything to look like armageddon was yesterday. Neither is on your side.

This is the kind of thing that really irks me: That's the whole quote. No next sentence. Full stop. Unbelievable.

Am I like the only person on these boards who's ever heard of the Shoe Bomber? Mind-boggling.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I am also opposed to pardons/clemency in standing death penalty cases unless there is scientifically valid and objective reason to doubt trial evidence. These people aren't unborn babies -- they did the crime, they knew the consequences, and a legal sentence was imposed. Society has an obligation to carry it out. The only thing I find more annoying than the arrogance of people who believe that we can be certain enough of evidence to apply the ultimate penalty, are people who don't understand the concept of responsibility. But yeah, you give me a good reason (as opposed to this Tookie nonsense), and I'd commute to life in prison, probably with a pretty well-inked pen.

"Hi honey, this is Daddy, Is Mommy near the phone?" "No Daddy, She's upstairs in the bedroom with Uncle Paul " After a brief pause, Daddy says, "But honey, you haven't got an Uncle - Paul" "Oh yes I do, and he's upstairs in the room with Mommy, right now" *** Brief Pause *** "Uh, okay then, ..this is what I want you to do. Put the phone down on the table, run upstairs and knock on the bedroom door, and shout to Mommy that Daddy's car just pulled into the driveway" "Okay Daddy, just a minute" A few minutes later the little girl comes back to the phone. "I did it Daddy" "And what happened honey?" he asked. "Well, Mommy got all scared, jumped out of bed with no clothes on and ran around screaming. Then she tripped over the rug, hit her head on the dresser and now she isn't moving at all!" "OH, my Hell. What about your Uncle Paul?" "He jumped out of the bed with no clothes on too. He was all scared and he jumped out of the back window and into the swimming pool. But I guess he didn't know that you took out the water last week to clean it, he hit the bottom of the pool and I think he's dead." ***Long Pause*** ***Longer Pause*** Then Daddy says, "Swimming pool??...Is this 486 - 5731?

This is what I'd like to expand on.

Gosh, it's a good thing you threw in three exclamation points there, Tetra. It almost stops one from noticing that your chart is three years out of date and only shows CO2 numbers. Will most people bother to read the article you linked, and realize that it actually shows China to be the #2 emitter three years ago? This source mentions that China's automobile ownership (the emissions of which are essentially unregulated, though they are supposed to meet a very old European standard) have grown a whopping 30% since the 2002 statistics you posted. Oh wait, I almost forgot, let me add a "!!!" to that. There we go. Fortunately China actually shows interest in working on its emissions. One of the useful things about their system is that they're not susceptible to internal pressure from special interest groups. I certainly wouldn't pick their system over ours, but it appears to be an advantage in this area. But that doesn't change the fact that they're the fastest growing emitter, are likely #1 in key areas of greenhouse gasses, and exempt from Kyoto, which they happily signed (gee, what a surprise).

Thanks all. I've actually been real happy with 1.4, which I upgraded to from Mozilla 1.7. Just a few minor hitches here and there really.