Actor and comedian Bernie Mac dies at age 50 chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Actor and comedian Bernie Mac dies at age 50

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Actor and comedian Bernie Mac dies at age 50 Posted: 8/10/2008 12:34:04 AM
I can't say that I was ever really a fan of Bernie Mac (more that I just didn't pay much attention to the kinds of movies and shows that he made, though he certainly seemed funny from the bits and pieces that I saw), but I still found this news to be quite shocking and very sad. At only 50? That is far too young to die. And from something such as pneumonia, which should not even be a problem in this day and age! That is really sad. While I may not have been his biggest fan, I send my condolences to his family for having lost such an incredibly talented man at such an incredibly young age...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

Are black women an endangered species? Posted: 7/30/2008 6:50:29 PM
Just a bit of semantics with the quote in the story. Black women are not an "endangered species" because black women (or anyone other person) are not a separate species. There has always been and will always be an enormous amount of mixing between the so-called "races" (a term/concept with which I also take exception) such that no humans are different enough to warrant a separate species or even sub-species, and therefore none will "go extinct" until the entire species does. Sorry for only commenting on semantics and not substance, but how we conceptualize the minimal and entirely superficial differences between all humans is one issue in which I am rather interested.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 18 (view)

Ph.d boasting Posted: 5/6/2008 11:53:17 PM
I am working on my Masters and have recently been accepted to a Ph.D. program. I put it on my profile in part because I was (and still am) thrilled to have gotten in, but also because that is my profession for now, and I should make that known. It also lets people get an idea of what I will be up to for the next few years. For instance, I will be changing cities when I start that program, and I will be out of the country a few times for stretches of up to three months while I do my research. And it also lets people know that I will likely be a grad student for the next 5 years or so, and will not have a full-time job for perhaps as many years after that, as academic jobs are hard to come by. And for the rest of my career I can be expected to still leave the country for months at a time to do research. But it is also part of my identity. I often consider myself an anthropologist/archaeologist first, and a grad student second; I am producing a major research document which I intend to publish, and my thesis is just a stepping stone in my professional career (albeit a career which leaves you with great debt). I do often find myself buying into the whole Ivory Tower, though. I don't like this, as I am philosophically opposed to such elitist attitudes and whatnot, but it can be hard to escape. You aren't pushed to become elitist, but I find that it sort of just happens, particularly as you acquire and begin to use the jargon of your profession, which identifies you as being an insider of that profession, essentially. Language is such a huge part of society... But for now, just remember the crazy life which us academics have gotten ourselves into: I am working on two papers for a conference this weekend, am volunteering for this conference, am trying to put together a first draft of my thesis, and start local fieldwork next week. This sort of workload will never end, but I love my discipline, and the over-abundance of work and lack of pay are worthwhile sacrifices for getting to dig up ancient sites! Jeeze, I need to get to bed. I am getting too philosophical...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

The conservative party, bigots. Posted: 4/3/2008 9:03:41 PM
I just watched/listened to the video on the CBC news webiste, and yeah, they are being jerks, but I don't see why such a fuss must be raised about this. Sure, they were adults, but they were somewhat drunk and farting around with a camera, both situations which can bring out the worst and most insensitive comments from all of us. And for the record, I am a member of the NDP, regularly volunteer for my NDP candidate during elections, and generally hold the NDP in high regard, but in this case I disagree with their pushing the matter. And I move beyond political-correctness, to the point where the very ideas of race and gender (and the supposed categorization of these) can offend me, as I do not believe that they are useful categories (but it is late, and I am starting to get into my anthropological theorizing here...you wouldn't understand my points without probably at least a few years of anthropology/sociology theory...) Anyway... Sure, this is somewhat of a pattern amongst conservatives, but his apology seemed sincere enough, and, as I say, they were just farting around, and half of what was said was probably meant strictly to be humour, though it was in very bad taste. Besides, the guys are being somewhat sexist, too, fringing on some things which could be considered harrassment today, and not at all appropriate behaviour for a campaign office (party or no party), but no one is picking up on those issues... You're ****ing because I'm not sufficiently tollerant of intolerance. Ummm ok then guilty as charged. Well said!

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

C anadi an Re British teacher in Pakistan Posted: 11/29/2007 6:51:17 PM
The maximum penalty was six months in prison and 40 lashes. What she ended up getting as 15 days in jail, and deportion back to Britain. No lashes. A short sentence. Yes, it seems unusual to us, and harsh to us, and she may well have been unaware of the insults which would come from naming an animal after the Muslim prophet (and it was the kids who named it), but we must have cultural sensitivity, and recognize that when one is in a foreign land, one is subject to their laws. And if one entered that country under their own will, then they are responsible for ensuring that they are familiar with the laws, and abide by them.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 3 (view)

Illegal immigrant rescues boy whose mother died in Ariz. crash Posted: 11/24/2007 12:18:16 AM
I think that too often illegal immigrants are seen as horrible people who are just trying to mooch off of Western government's support systems, but I think that most illegal immigrants are fundamentally very good people, but people who are in such a poor and desperate situation that they are forced to either live in poverty and destitution, or immigrate illegally. I hope that this case helps people to realize that illegal immigrants are not hearltess criminals, but rather good, but desperate, people who will do the right thing when given the chance. I too think that this man should be allowed legal access to the U.S.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

Pollution killing 25,000 Canadians a year Posted: 10/4/2007 8:41:26 AM
I think that global warming has come so much to the forefront of our environmental concerns (and for good reason) that we have forgotten that it is by far not the only environmental issue that needs to be dealt with, although when we fix some of the more immediate, tangible environmental problems, such as the ones refered to in this article, then surely that will have an impact on the grander climate change issues. So thank you for posting this. We focus so much on finding a cure for cancer that we lose site on finding, and reducing the causes of cancer. Yes, cigarettes, asbestos, and other causes are well-known and we have been good about raising awareness of their long-term health problems, but there is still so much out there that causes cancer and other negative health effects that we ignore, or know are bad but allow to continue because it is easier/cheaper (in the short term, but certainly not in the long term) to ignore them. I had a (fortunately benign) brain tumour when I was a kid, and my brother has Crohn's Disease (which affects the intestines). It is interesting when we hear people from the neighbourhood where we lived as kids talk about how it seems so many people in that neighbourhood have had brain tumours, or have Crohn's. I have no idea if it is statistically-significant, but it is an interesting curiosity, considering that a few blocks from our school was the old Goodyear Tire factory (where high-density and low-income housing was built wayyyyy to soon after the plant closing. There is no way that they could have cleaned up all of the contamination from over a 100 years of massive factory being there), and who knows what sorts of factories may have existed on the grounds where our school was, and where our house was. And even cancer and other things casued by chemicals are by far not the only place where we can see (and have been able to see for 200 years of industrialization) the direct and immediate impacts of poor environmental decisions. I think that thousands of people die every year in Toronto alone due to poor air quality. Most of these are already prone to respiratory illnesses and/or in frail health, but that is still people who die as a direct result of smog and other factors related to poor/outdated environmental policy. The future threat of global warming, while quite serious, is by far not the only major environmental problem that we have on our hands, and I think that many of us have lost sight of that fact.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Information Everyone Should Know Before Giving Out Your Phone Number. Posted: 3/17/2007 3:35:15 PM
You have been able to do this on Whitepages.com for a long time as well. It can be quite handy, because not everyone who wants to know where you live wants to know that for malicious reasons. In fact, most people probably don't want to hurt you in any way. I guess my example would be that I am looking for a new place for next year. I have gotten several emails about places. These don't always have location information, but usually have a phone number. I want to look up where the house is, so that I can get an idea of whether I would even want to move there next year, so I go to Whitepages.com and do a reverse phone search, and find out whether I am interested in that house or not, without having to call or email back. And this service has been available for many years. It isn't anything new, either. It maybe speeds things up a bit, but it does not replace what was before done with a phone book and a Pearle's map book...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 20 (view)

Officially sanctioned witchhunt against illegal immigrants? Posted: 11/2/2006 9:44:17 AM
what a peaceful country the us would be without those criminal immigrants, especially those from cuba...........I applaud the measure.........it should be retroactive to the year 1450. Yeah, not a bad idea. There would certainly be lots of room for the few remaining Native Americans, once the rest of us leave. Well, a few Vikings could stay, since they came before 1450. Why retroactive to 1450, anyway? That is before the major European conquest of the Americas. That is 42 years before Columbus even arrived to rape, pillage and take slaves from several Carribean islands, after he realized that gold was not so easy to come by. Surely he would be considered an illegal, too, coming from a foreign land, uninvited, only to reek havoc on the local inhabitants. Complete with the innumerable diseases which were endemic in Europe at the time, which were responsible for killing approximately 90% of the Native inhabitants within a few centuries. I just have to ask all (well, most) of you, what is so wrong with diversity, anyway? Why cannot an immigrant adopt American attitudes and culture, as well as retain their own? Yes, immigrants should learn to speak English, for the purpose of being able to live comfortably in the society, but you must remember that it can be extremely difficult for many people to pick up a language, especially when they are older. And I also don't support illegal immigration, but I still udnerstand why people come to the U.S. (and Canada, and some other countries), and am sympathetic to their reasons. Maybe if it was easier for people to arrive legally, they wouldn't have to come illegally. Fact is, both of our countries, and many other industrialized countries need immigration in order for the population to continue growing, since the birth rate is lower than the death rate. So maybe if we made it more attractive for people to come legally (many do, of course, but we need to make legal immigration more attractive for those who arrive illegally, is what I mean). Let people see that they can still be proud of where they came from. Picking up and leaving your home surely is not an easy decision, and many people do so out of need. They should feel welcomed in a multi-cultural society, where they can be proud of where they have come from, and where they are now. That is one of the many reasons why I am glad to be from Toronto, which is one of the (if not the ) most multicultural cities in the world. Diversity is never a bad thing; it teaches us more about ourselves, more about the world, and helps us to become better, more understanding people.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Large chicken found Posted: 10/26/2006 2:42:30 PM
That is neat, but I don't understand the title of this thread. The bird wasn't a chicken, and the article didn't seem to imply that it was in the chicken line...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Human species 'may split in two' Posted: 10/18/2006 12:35:02 AM
Lets see now, theory of evolution theorist, from an economics school....... need I go any further? I do not know what department he is from, but he could very well be from the anthropology department, and the LSE is quite well known for its anthropology. I think that it is better known for social anthropology, as opposed to biological anthropology, but he may be in a biology department, rather than anthropology. Regardless, just because it is the London School of Economics does not mean that everything it does falls within the discipline of economics; economics is an extremely broad field, and questions about how/why humans behave and how they will behave in the future are, I would say, quite important to economics. That said, I always found it slightly odd that one of my undergraduate anthropology professors did his Ph.D. at LSE, but I justified it as I have done above. Anyway, I am too tired and must get to bed, so don't want to go deep into evolution theory, but I am not entirely sure that I agree entirely with what the article proposes. Yes, sexual selection is something to think about in terms of future evolution, but humans are extremely mixed, and each of the various species of hominid since the first radiation out of Africa (which was Homo erectus) has interbred. There has not been much in the way of differentiation which is what creates species and sub-species for at least the last 75,000 years, gene flow and gene drift (which serve as homogenizers) have been occuring amongst all hominids, likely since Ardipithecus, which was arguably the first in the human "line." This is why all humans are extremely similar on a genetic level (as well as a morphological level). I tend to think that this will continue, and that genes will continue to spread and prevent the separation that results in speciation (the creation of new species, as opposed to evolution which is just change in traits. Evolution will only lead to speciation if the different genetic traits are not allowed to comingle). There is so much more at play than sexual selection, and behavioural selection will, I think, help to retain a fairly uniform, generalized species. The other problem is just how do you predict the future? And how quickly will these things have to change? 100,000 years is a reasonably long time, long enough for sub-speciation at least. But significant changes in 1000 years? 1000 years is a drop in the hat, in evolutionary terms. The other problem is how do you judge what variations will arise? That cannot be done. Selection works on variation, and variation arises through random and unpredictable mutations that occur during DNA replication. It is not like evolution has some end point that all species strive towards, and they see where they need to go and work on developing those traits; evolution really is random, and has no end-point. It doesn't strive to create anything. So it is impossible to say that we will evolve these certain traits. If the genes never mutate to create the trait in the first place, then it cannot evolve. This is all assuming an entirely natural process, and that can no longer be assumed, of course. Genetic modification, splicing, etc. can aim to create certain traits. But that is where we have to stop and wonder whether we really want to do that. Evolution is not a perfect process, as it is often imagined to be. Evolution doesn't work to create "better" species; it just creates different ones. There are always (or usually always) significant drawbacks to any major new evolutionary trait, but if these traits take 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 or even 2 million years to develop, then the problems, if you will, will have some time to work themselves out. They may still be there, but they will not necessarily be as pronounced as if the new traits occured spontaneously and spread throughout the population in a short time. An example of this is bipedalism. There are major health problems associated with bipedalism, but the overall advantages have meant that bipedalism was retained. If we go ahead and "create" a new trait and spread it throughout a population within a few generations, it may result in very significant drawbacks which could not possibly be predicted or corrected, and there would be mass suffering over a few years, rather than slow, gradual but efficient change over millennia.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 7 (view)

Walmart Employees - You deserve a break today. Posted: 10/15/2006 10:41:23 AM
I have been boycotting Wal-mart for a few years now. Unfortunately, though, I have to break that boycott. I am a student, and so I don't have a ton of money. When I needed steel-toed boots for my archaeology summer job, I had to go to Wal-Mart because they were by far the cheapest, and I had gone several other places first. That is just an example of how their massive purchasing power, and ability to undersell everyone (even Zellers, which is a major Canadian department store chain which is similar to Wal-Mart in many ways). While I am not always a huge fan of the way capitalism takes place, I like to support companies which are fair to their employees, which are fair to their customers, and which are fair to other local businesses. It is a shame that small local businesses often go out of business when Wal-mart comes to town, because the smaller ones simply cannot compete. I worked retail (at a major grocery retailer) for seven years, and while I had small problems with the place frequently, I cannot say anything really bad about it; it was a good place to work, and was a good place for me to start my working life (I got the job when I was 15, and it was my first real job, not counting being a baseball umpire and having a paper route). The pay was good for retail, there was a set and fair break schedule, if you just had to run to the washroom, that was fine...I had multiple roles there, especially in the last few years, and these included working on the service desk and being the front-end supervisor on occasion, and I don't recall the managment ever telling me to be a tight-ass and not allow breaks or anything when I was running the front-end. I have gotten onto a bit of a tangent, there, but that is just a bit of discussion of what retail should be; one should not feel degraded because they work in retail, but I don't think that Wal-mart sees it that way. I try my best to shop there as little as often. Sometimes, you just need to, because you can't afford the other guys, but I don't think that I have set foot in a Wal-mart for over a year, so I guess I am doing all right.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Idiot barb aimed at TSA's Kip Hawley gets passenger detained Posted: 10/12/2006 2:09:46 PM
I quite enjoy that they thought that calling someone an idiot was akin to making a bomb threat. I...um...yeah, I just can't see the connection. Words don't blow things up. Words poke fun, and that is all. I have never flown through the U.S., but it will be interesting if I ever do...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

Crap Art at its Finest (i.e. Worst) Posted: 10/10/2006 2:33:36 AM
A Life of Adventure Seeing something new Every day Sleeping someplace different Every night Travelling to new places Learning a slew of new faces A life of adventure Is the life I want to live Sitting on a bus Other side of the world I’m crazy to be here It’s just a stupid town Why am I heading there Instead of lying down Hours and hours on that bus Legs cramped Hungry for food But staring out the window For the amazing view Closer all the time Finally there Where do I go? What do I do? Can I find a place to sleep? I hear it gets cold here Not like everywhere else. Wake up shivering Next morning What an amazing night Instant friends Song and music And lots of arrack Nice hotel! It does get cold here! Where to, next? A week later Another continent Four countries later Wandering around a medieval town All alone, despite the crowds The group went to the beach I can’t waste my day there! Look at this place! Up the bell tower. Wow! Maybe now I’ll go for a swim Or a ride in a kayak Another day, Another country A beautiful mountain town On a lake of solitude Hey! Look at that castle! That’s where I’m going Relaxation is not for me Not when there is so much to see Another day Another town In another country Miles away Oh wow! Look at the mountains! I’ve gotta get me up one of those! Anyone want to come with me? No? Anyone? I see You all want to do the fun stuff Okay! I’ll see you this evening Up the mountain I go Hiking solo Why did I do this! This sucks! It is too long Too steep Too difficult Maybe I will turn around And head back down Turn around I do Only to see the view Barely half-way up What is it like at the top? I can’t turn around now! So onward I go At the top. Wunderbar! No other words to describe Pure satisfaction That I got me here There is nothing I would have rather done On this beautiful day Than to take myself up this mountain Next week A few countries behind I am on my own again No rest for me Not here! Not now! A lie down would be so nice But there is still so much To see and to do So on I go Off to the great place of sacrifice To pay my tribute to the fallen Serene place Beautiful place When’s my train? I’ve still got time I’ll stay here another minute or two (I missed that train by the way spent the night in the quiet town but it was worth it) Last day of adventuring For the time being There is still so much to see In this world city My feet ache They have been begging me for a break I’ve walked more in the last two months Than in my whole like before But no rest yet Maybe tomorrow But today I must see everything Who knows if I will ever get here again? And I can’t leave without seeing this! And this! And this. And this... Wander the city My last day abroad Oh! And this! Goodbye travels For the time being See you soon I sure hope! Seeing something new Every day Sleeping someplace different Every night Travelling to new places Learning a slew of new faces A life of adventure Is the life I’ve begun to live

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Archaeologists find 11-millennium-old building in Syria Posted: 10/7/2006 12:27:41 PM
In latin america, old Aztec, Mayan, Incan and other nations, are having their ruins discovered and saved for all human kind to enjoy. ... It is a miracle that the muslim cultures have not further ruin the Babylonian and other finds. Bad enough they plunder and sell the antiquities. What, you don't think that the looting of archaeological sites is common the world over? Looting even happens in Ontario, where "pot-hunters" will dig around archaeological sites looking for complete ceramic vessels, which they can then sell on the international antiquities market. This is not to mention the innumerable stone projectile points which are picked up by non-archaeologists without even thinking about it. Once something has left its primary context, it is basically useless to us. This happens everywhere. A site I worked on in Sri Lanka had recently had a huge robber's pit dug into it, as they were likely looking for "treasure" of some sort. I have not yet worked on any sites in the Andes (I hope to do so next summer, as I am writing my Master's thesis on Andean archaeology), but they have certainly been looted, too, and continue to be looted. And, of course, you have the Spanish Conquistadors, which were quite impressed by Latin American developments (the Inca were the largest empire in the world at the time of their fall, afterall). Being so impressed, the Conquistadors sacked everything. And don't forget why people loot sites. They aren't looking for pretty things for their own enjoyment. They are largely poor and desperate for money (and it is a whole other discussion about what is wrong with the world when people are so in need of money so that they can buy food that they are willing to destroy their own history (many don't care, but many are desperate)). And who is it, by-and-large, that buys these antiquities? Who is it that creates a market, and drives people to plunder archaeological sites and sell the antiquities? Who is it that, if they weren't so hungry for authentic antiquities, would make the looting of archaeological sites a thing of the past? That's right. It is largely rich Europeans and North Americans. A little bit of looting happens because they people who do the looting want cool things for themselves. The vast majority of it happens to sell things to people who are willing to pay $2 million so that they can have a carving from Tiwanaku to decorate their mantle and to create a conversation piece for when their rich friends come over for parties.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 16 (view)

Selective Service advertising is up...is there a Draft coming? Posted: 10/6/2006 11:55:06 PM
agree the draft is a bad thing what i am sayin is if they want you to go then you need to man up and go.if you are chicken shit then dont do the selective service and pay with jail time if they ever catch you,and dont **** if they do.if you dont want to fight when they ask you then move the hell out of here I see that gender equality has not hit you yet. What about "womaning up" and going, too? Anyway, in all your rambling you seem to have a contradiction. In your first post, you basically tell people that they have to go fight if there is a draft, and if they prefer to think and not do everything that they are told to do, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, that is treason. Yet here, you tell them to leave, which is exactly what the Draft Dodgers did. So which is it? Stay, or leave? Also, I enjoy how you idealize World War II. There were certainly a fair share of desertees there, too, and not everyone who went there went expecting to do the job until it was done. Veterans for WWI and WWII went for much the same reasons that they do now. In many cases, it was not their ideals and the "fight for freedom" that made them join. Those are things that have really been applied afterwards, in many cases. It was the promise of a paycheque (remember that the Great Depression was just sort of coming to an end when WWII started, and people needed money) and a sense of adventure that drove many to go. When I visited Juno Beach this past summer, the guide at the centre there talked about leading a tour of the beach, where a veteran of the landing was taking the tour along with a bunch of others. He apparently gave a long spiel to everyone about how they felt like they were fighting to defend freedom, and all that patriotic jazz. Afterwards, he confided to the tour guide that $1.50/day wasn't bad either. In other words, he, along with so many others, were in it because they had no other form of income. It is very much true that war (especially war in modern times, since the late 18th century or so, and most especially 20th century war) has often seen the involvement, and subsequent death of largely young, poor men who got caught up in a huge mess which they did not create, and which they likely did not know what they were getting into. WWI was a real eye-opener for many. Europe had not seen a true, major war for 100 years. People did not know what war really was about, and it was often glorified (plus the pay, sense of adventure, "promise" that the war would be over soon, etc.). So initially, people joined the armed forces in great number. By 1917 the numbers were not so great, and within the last year of the war even the Canadian military had to introduce conscription, because it was impossible to get enough volunteers - once it became known what war was actually like, people simply didn't want to go, despite the propaganda. WWII became like that, too. Vietnam was like that. Iraq has become like that as well. The pawns who fight in the military have no control the administrations that seek to gain from the wars. The best way that they can remain individuals, and stand up for what they truly believe in, is to do what they feel is right, not what their government feels right. Standing up for truth, liberty and justice in the face of a tremendous force, such as the U.S. government, and not giving up your own morals to fight in a war that you do not believe is just - that is courage.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 14 (view)

'Free kittens' collected — apparently for abuse Posted: 10/5/2006 9:32:48 PM
I've been wanting to see Utah. Maybe paying him a visit will give me a good excuse... How desperate can a guy get to have his girlfriend back? As you said, surely she should realize that he is not the most mentally stable to be doing such a thing. Jeeze buddy, stop hurting and killing cute little animals and go to a bar or something. Everyone is welcome to go ahead and try to hurt my cat. I guarantee he will hurt you first (he's a bit of a psycho). I have so many scratches from him, and that is just from me trying to be friendly and pet him or pick him up or whatever. He seems to be happiest when he is pissed off, since that is almost the only time he purrs. But you can be scratching him, and he is obviously enjoying it, and then all of a sudden he reaches back, bites your finger, and then he takes off and goes to hide under the coffee table. Psychotic cat...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 6 (view)

Now US wants to make an alliance with the Terrorists. Posted: 10/5/2006 6:01:06 PM
It is not surprising that the U.S. is thinking of working with terrorists. I mean, it's not like its the first time, or anything. Usama bin Laden was trained and set up by the CIA, afterall, with money which the CIA raised by turning a blind eye to the sale of heroine (or maybe it was opium). All this because the U.S. wanted to keep the U.S.S.R. out of Afghanistan. In essence, the whole idea of terrorism, as it has been practiced by Al-Qaeda and others, is a CIA concept, and very well may not exist had the CIA not been so paranoid about the advance of communist ideas throughout much of Asia (Mamdani 2004). Work Cited Mamdani, Mahmood 2004 Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. New York: Three Leaves Press.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

Pa. Farm Discovers a 4-Legged Chicken Posted: 9/23/2006 11:06:29 PM
Is it just me, or does something seem horribly wrong that a four-legged chicken could go unnoticed for a year and a half? I guess that's what you get when you have 36,000 chickens, and foremen and all. Ah, factory farming. I think that I shall soon be free from your horrifying grip. (I'm not implying that the chicken had four legs because of factory farming, by the way. Genetic deformities happen perfectly naturally during the process of recombination in the sex cells. Usually they cause a spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage), but sometimes they come to full term. Genetic mutations, some of which cause physical deformities, cause variation, which natural selection then works on. So this process os vital to evolution. Anyway, rather than implying that the chicken was deformed because of the farm, I just think that something is a little off when something that extraordinary goes missed for so long, because there are simply too many birds).

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Woman Finds 1.30-Carat Diamond in Park Posted: 9/23/2006 10:40:18 AM
Need further directions to: The Crater of Appatite State Park The Crater of Sapphire State Park The Crater of Tourmaline State Park There are plenty of places to go mineral hunting. I have been to some on Crown land in Ontario (Crown land being government-owned, and therefore public use land). I'm sure that there is plenty of similar land in Washnington, and that would be a good place to look for minerals because of the mountains and volcanism. You wouldn't want to look in the newer mountains, though, because these things form deep underground, and then must be brought to the surface by uplifting and erosion. The Canadian Shield, which runs through much of Ontario, Quebec, some of Manitoba, and down into New York State is where I went mineral-hunting. It was 8-10 km below ground when the area was mountainous, over 2 billion years ago. So older metamorphic rocks might be where you want to be looking. Okay, I know you weren't necessarily serious about actually going to look for things, but if anyone is, the above should be good tips. Around Bancroft, Ontario, I found apatite, although the crystals were very small. There was also garnet, which can be nice. I think that we found some kyalonite, and I am not sure about tourmaline. We might have even found some corundum, which is the mineral name of sapphire (blue corundum) and either ruby or emerald, I don't remember. Okay, I bought a little rock at a rock shop for a buck or so that had some yellow corundum on it. I don't think I found any.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Senate refuses to raise minimum wage. Posted: 6/21/2006 3:28:29 PM
This is not unlike the situation on Ontario, where under the "Progressive" Conservative government of Mike Harris, minimum wage was frozen for eight years. When he (and Ernie Eves, who followed him) were finally replaced by the Liberals, minimum wage went up, still not to what it should be, but at least a little more in line with inflation. But I didn't realize that minimum wage was frozen in the U.S. In fact, I thought that they generally raised it frequently, and had found that raising minimum wage was actually better for all! Apparently this hasn't been happening, but raising minimum wage is best for all, regardless. Sure, a company saves money by paying its employees shit wages, but then those employees can't afford to buy the company's products. When the employees are paid half-decently, then they buy more stuff, and everyone is generally happier. You are right. This is disgusting.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 26 (view)

Overpopulation Posted: 4/28/2006 12:00:55 AM
thank god 94% of the world population live in poverty. if only 88% of the population lived in poverty, life on earth as we know it will not be as enjoyable as it is today. Yes, I suppose I didn't expand on this enough. That is the problem. How do we end world poverty, yet not have the world population consuming as voraciously as those of us in the west do? If we end poverty by "making everyone like us" then the world will suffer greatly (and it's not like we've elminated poverty here, anyway). So we must find a way to end poverty and increase the standard of living for everyone, without making everyone gluttonous voracious consumers who want everything that they can possibly get (which is what we are told we should do in Canada and the U.S. Everything seems to be marketed towards being disposable, or being things that you absolutely need to make your life better). I'm sure that a sustainable way of ending poverty can be found before too long. Unfortunately, I don't have the way. I tend to look backwards to see what happened, and how it happened, and why. Potentially, that can help us with the future, but my aim in doing so is more academic, and out of interest.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 14 (view)

Overpopulation Posted: 4/27/2006 9:01:44 AM
The birth rate in Canada, and all of the Western countries is lower than the death rate, yes. Population continues to grow due to immigration. Given that we are a post-industrial society, this makes sense. Basically, in hunter-gatherer societies, there is a low birth rate due to low fertility, and because you cannot afford to have many dependent kids when you are moving five or more times per year. It becomes too much of a hassle. Once agriculture develops, however, then you need to have lots of kids since you aren't constantly moving, and since children are a relatively cheap labour force that can either help you farm your farm, or help you farm the farm that you work on, and thus get you more money (particularly if you are paid by how many seeds you can plant, how much you can harvest, etc.) In early industry, having kids helps because they can also work and bring in revenue, but once society gets to an advanced industrial stage, or a post-industrial stage, then kids probably aren't allowed to work, but wages are high enough that you can make enough to afford a decent living. But kids are expensive, and you want the best for your kids, so you don't have very many kids. Then you save money, and the kids that you do have can have a better standard of living. Many "developing" countries are still largely agricultural, or it has only been in the last few years (30-40ish at most) that they have developed a strong industrial sector. Thus the mindset to have many kids still exists, even if there is general famine and your kids keep dying. You still want a large number of kids so that you can hopefully provide a decent living for all, as if you only had a few kids, you likely couldn't. It takes several generations for this idea to change. For instance, my father's family are largely farmers in the Ottawa Valley area. My dad's great-grandparents had lots of children. I don't even know how many. My dad's dad's grandparents had 10 children. My dad's parents moved to the city, and stopped farming. They still had five kids. My parents had three. So basically, what I am getting at, is that industry creates a lower birth rate, and so when everyone is industrialized, the population should start to go down. Which is an even scarier thought than overpopulation (which I do agree is a problem, but I have hopefully explained it in such a way that you don't think that people who have lots of kids are crazy). If everyone consumed like we do in Canada and the U.S., the ozone would disappear in ten seconds, the layer of carbon monoxide would be fifteen kilometers thick, and the temperatures would skyrocket to the point where the oceans boiled! We would turn into Venus. Okay, some hyperbole there, but basically it would be an environmental nightmare, since 6% of the world consumes 40% of the world's resources. What will happen if that 6% who consumes as we do jumps to 12%? Will there be anything left for the other 88%? If I have 3 kids, and they have 4 kids, and they have 3 kids You are forgetting about death. Chances are decent that you will be dead by the time your children's children (your grandchildren) are of child-bearing age, and almost certainly you will be dead by the time your great-grandchildren are of child-bearing age. Sure, there is still a net increase (assuming that all the kids live, but in the West the child death rate is comparatively low), but generally there are not more than three generations living at the same time, so death cannot be left out.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land Posted: 4/11/2006 9:55:17 PM
i could kiss an archaeology "student" right now! thank you soo much for your studious contribution, current and future! Hehe, thanks, but I don't need any kisses! I just go around trying to dispel the archaeological mis-conceptions that so many people seem to have. Well, as best as I can, anyway. I am still just a student (nearly finished my undergrad, and starting my Masters in September), so there is still much for me to learn. I do have a basic grasp of the entire subject, though, and learning how to think in anthropological and archaeological terms, and how to critically assess things, is the best thing about an undergraduate education. The eloquence is just for fun! Whenever I see anyone write in an incoherent manner on the internet, I try and be sure to write as coherently as possible. I wonder whether some of them will even understand what I am saying...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land Posted: 4/11/2006 8:25:04 PM
Like neanderthal man was suppose to be and ancestor until they tested its DNA found a sewer rat had more common DNA than neanderthal man Keep Trying Professor Um, what? The debate with how Neanderthals relate to us is whether they were direct ancestors, or whether they were a closely related line that went extinct. And also whether they are truly a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), as I like to believe, or whether they were a different species of the genus Homo (Homo neanderthalensis). What is this garbage about sewer rats? Chimps are 96.4% genetically identical to modern humans. Neanderthals would likely be much, much more similar, genetically. But there have been troubles extracting DNA from Neanderthal bones, as DNA breaks down relatively quickly, and Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago. But in general, as far as I know, there are still many who believe that Neanderthals at least contributed somewhat to the current human gene pool, and are therefore at least somewhat ancestral. I think that it is fair to say that they did. If you can clarify what you were trying to say (along with grammar, syntax, punctuation and maybe a few less sentence fragments, so as to be able to be understood by other people), then I can refute some more. Or debate, at least.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 64 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/23/2006 5:26:40 PM
Indeed, professors often encourage students to present something that the professor would disagree with. That is the academic process. It doesn't matter as much what you are presenting (as long as you are not fabricating your evidence), it matters how you argue it. So you get marked on your argument, not necessarily your evidence. If you disagree with the professor, as long as your argument is good, you will still get a good mark, and perhaps better than others. This doesn't apply to tests that simply test factual knowledge, of course. This applies more to essays. I also find it funny how many people refer to "the liberal agenda." There's not just one. There is an enormous mish-mash of people who would be considered liberals (and, believe it or not, many strong liberals are actually quite religious. Our NDP riding association executive (so, Social Democrat, a little bit further left than Liberals, but perhaps can be put under the blanket term of "liberal") consists of about 15 people. I am the only student currently. There are a few teachers (mostly retired, I think, but they taught high school), and some other random professions. But there are at least three ministers, two United and one Quaker. I love how commonly liberals are equated with secularism and atheism. Yes, some of us are certainly atheist, but many very right-wing people I have encountered are also atheist. Many liberals are very religious, and really, from what I have heard of the way Christianity /should/ be taught, anyone who truly believes in Christianity should be left-wing. It is interesting to think that in most religions, and even in most earlier forms of Christianity, the very religious were generally ascetics, and 'denied worldy pleasures' in order to be saved in the afterlife. So they chose poverty. Look at the most religious Christians today. Sure, they do some charity work, but they are also some of the richest people in existence. This goes against basically the core of Aristotlean "City of Man" vs. "City of God" argument. These people are enjoying all the glut and pleasures of the "City of Man" but are claiming to be adhering to the "City of God." Another tangent... I won't really get into this argument, but I ask to the one poster: Is your god really the same as that of George W. Bush? Is it possible for two different people to believe the same thing? Can your reality really be the same as Bush's? I don't know, I am just asking these questions. As part of my 'liberal' anthropological education, I am taking an theory of anthropology course. It is fun. We are basically questioning everything. I no longer am sure whether or not there is such a thing as culture, for instance. I am no longer sure how anthropologists can learn anything about other people. I am no longer sure how we can write/talk about other people. I have known for a while that different societies really inhabit different worlds (although this was brought into question today), and have very different ideas and worldviews, and are ultimately different in thought, too (also questioned today). And in my entire four years of university, this is the first professor who has ever mentioned anything political in class, when he made a passing comment about "leftist intellectuals like me." I enjoyed that. Of course, I also recognize the tendency for intellectuals to be left-wing, and ejnoy it greatly. Of course, learning to question your existence should not be anything strictly leftist, and that is what a university education should truly be about, as I have previously mentioned.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 42 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/22/2006 7:18:50 PM
No, I was responding to Dahliakitten's post, as well as to the general perception which evolution seems to receive amongst so many fundamentalist groups these days (particularly with regards to high school science). As far as that debate goes (I'm on another tangent here), I think that creationism should be taught in public schools. Creationsism of the Judeo-Christian belief, of the Hindu, of the Australian Aborigine, of the ancient Egyptians, and of any other applicable faith. But they should not be taught as part of a science class. They should be taught as part of a world religions class, which I think should be taught in all high schools, as learning about societies and cultures apart from one's own is very valuable (although many of my fellow atheists would disagree. But I don't agree with many atheists on many points, either. Part of my critical thinking). As the one poster above said in a much more concise manner than I did, 'science and religion are two entirely different things, and should not be taught together. Scienc, as with auto mechanics, doesn't have anything to do with religion.' (Okay, that was a paraphrase, but more or less what he had said.)

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 36 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/22/2006 5:58:47 PM
Although non-religious myself, I entirely support freedom of religion. So we are agreed there. But since freedom of religion does not automatically mean that religion is correct, or that all religious views should be taught out of context, I must disagree with your views on evolution and such. If you disagree with evolution, then don't take a class that talks about it (and every class gets a syllabus at the beginning which highlights everything that will be covered, so you know from the first class whether or not a certain thing will be covered, and you can choose to drop it then and there). We take evolution as a fact. End of story. It is a scientific theory (and a scientific theory is not the same as the common usage of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a model for explaining a given phenomenon, and that model has been demonstrated to be true. In other words, a scientific theory is most likely correct. If there is no doubt about it's correctness, it becomes a scientific law, but even gravity isn't a law, so it takes a lot to make a law). What I am getting at, is that since humans evoloved from animals, and since a university is supposed to teach facts as they are currently accepted by the academic world at large, don't complain about it. If you don't like evolution, then don't take anthropology or biology. Also, I want to comment on your idea that professors are god hating. God has nothing to do with most university teaching (at least in the sciences). I'm sure that many professors are religious themselves, and religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. God has nothing to do with this. We look at and describe phenomena that we see in the everyday world. Deities are not a part of everyday phenomena. Debating whether they exist or not is the job of theologians, philosophers, etc. (and there are plenty of them in universities, too. Priests/reverends/whatever are university-educated, too, remember). Deities do not and should not factor into scientific discussion.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 26 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/22/2006 3:35:43 PM
"from now on you're not allowed to use logic in your arguments." Ah, but if I do not use logic in my arguments, then I will be arguing like a right-wing person, and therefore my posts will not be true to myself, and I may as well not post anything. I kid, I kid. Some of the most de-humanized, passion-free, purely 'logical,' 'reason' based, and, frankly, stupidest arguments I have ever heard have come from obnoxiously right-wing people. (Note: I am not calling all right-wing people obnoxious. You can at least argue with more moderate right-wing people, and they seem to be much more open to actual, valuable discussion. It is the likes of Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, and Jerry Falwell (and many of their followers) who are obnoxious, and won't even listen to your side of an argument, but just try to put it down and debunk it with the same tired methods. In some cases shouting over their opponent to the degree that the opponent can't get an audible word in, and when you catch a word here or there, you realize that they are disputing (quite believably) everything that the obnoxious one is saying. A debate where the only way that you have to debase someone's argument is to drown them out does not seem to be much of a tactic to me. Or anything where the only method you have to argue your case is to put down the opposition, and to try and silence them. The conservatives did this quite a bit in the last Canadian federal election (I mean locally. Quite frankly, all the major party leaders, including my beloved Jack Layton, were frequenly obnoxious in the way they argued their cases in the debates. I don't agree with putting someone else down as a means of promoting oneself. Now, pointing out facts which the viewing public may not be aware of is something different. Locally, the Conservative candidate was terrible at the all candidate's debate, out-and-out lied about things that his campaign would do (and I saw evidence of that with my own eyes, specifically putting up elections signs when and where he said that he would not put them up), and generally ran a poor campaign. And the stupid Burlington population bought it and elected the guy). Anyway, I go on tangents easily. I was thinking a little more about my last post. Yes, universities teach facts, but the ultimate goal of a proper university education, as far as I can tell based on my own experience, is to teach a student how to learn, and to teach a student to question what others tell them. You may term that "cynical" if you wish, but I would say that thoughtful, educated critical assessment is the ultimate goal of a university education. This is done by teaching facts, as well as theories and opinions. But a university education should teach you to question everything, and you should learn how to acquire information, and how to filter out incorrect or poorly-considered information. Call this "liberal," if you like, but I would consider it to be critical free-thought, which is something that everyone should posess, and which is not inherently politicized; not inherently part of either "wing." It is something that all humans should posess. If you would rather sit back and accept everything that you are told, then that is fine. But no matter how long you spent in university, if you do that, then I don't think you got much of an education. For instance, as much as I am a Social Democrat, and as much as the NDP represents my views better than any other party, I am critical of things that it does, and I question things that they support. Same thing with Canada. I am quite patriotic (I don't think that I would be able to count the number of Canadian flags in my room), but there are many things done in Canada (by the government and by the society), and if I disagree with them, then I will say so (or at least think so). The point of an education is to be able to think for yourself, and not accept everything that someone tells you. And I get just as pissed off when I see a left-wing person unquestioningly accepting what they are told as when I see a right-wing person doing it. But I get truly pissed off when this thing, that should be universal, should be as objective and unbiased as humans can possibly be (okay, humans can't really be biased, even within the hard sciences, but they can at least try and overcome their biases), should be truly balanced, and should be appreciated and followed by everyone, regardless of political stance, is called "liberal" and bashed for being "left-wing." If you think that being balanced is favouring your side of the argumentm, then you are wrong. If you think that being open-minded and critical favours one side or the other, then you are wrong. Note: In the above diatribe, "you" is not meant to refer to any specific person, but is used in general terms.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/22/2006 2:44:23 PM
"I said never again would I attend liberal professors, and the next time I got my next degree from a conservative school that did not push the liberal agenda. What a relief to be able to be balanced instead of just liberal hogswill!" Um...I don't want to say that your education didn't really get you anywhere, as I really don't know, but I don't see much proof of education in this statement. You say that for your next degree you went to a conservative school, and that that was balanced? I won't enter into the argument here about whether the left or the right wing is more biased (both do have their biases, of course, and it should be clear from my previous post which set of biases I tend to prefer, and which I think tend to be less biased, overall), but to take things from an actually objective stance, I must point out a glaring contradiction in your statement. In the first sentence, you said that you went to a conservative school. In the second sentence, you said that the school was balanced. Now, you see, to me, it seems that if you are somewhere that defines itself as being conservative, then that would imply that it is not balanced. If it were truly balanced, then it wouldn't be a conservative or a liberal school; it would just be a school. In order to be considered a conservative school, it must therefore not be balanced. For instance my school, the University of Toronto, perhaps has some left and rightish disciplines (I am fortunate enough to be in anthropology, which tends to be rather intellectual and left), but overall, the university is not considered one or the other, as far as I know. That is a where you get a balanced education. Politics don't really fit into most of my courses, but given what I have studied, I would certainly say that I have had professors who were right wing, and if I studied the more natural sciences or mathematics or economics, or anything like that, then they certainly would be right-wing. I have taken a few such courses, but they generally don't interest me. I won't really go into this whole (very incorrect) notion that the left-wing is incapable of being unbiased and objective. And another thing. If a professor is teaching the facts, then they are teaching the facts, and like it or not, if the facts are what you would consider left-wing, then it's too bad that you would dislike them. Sure, there is a lot of room for opinion, and theory, and unproven things in a university education, but there is also the central focus of teaching factual information about the world, as we currently understand it. If relativism, evolution, humanism, etc. are facts, then get over it. And as far as I'm concerned, cultural relativity and evolution are facts. If you don't like being taught the truth as part of your university education, then don't go to university.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

Pat Robertson on College Professors: you know some of them are killers! Posted: 3/21/2006 8:22:43 PM
"Liberal professors are criminals because they promote an evil agenda. Hitler didnt break any laws either. We live in a morally bankrupt society because of liberals. And, btw, I am an athiest." Ah, the eternal comparison to Hitler. No, he didn't technically break any laws. He wormed his way into power through legal loopholes, then changed the laws so that what he did was no longer illegal. And need I remind you that Hitler was of the religious far right wing? Basically, not very far off from the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and George W. Bush. So, you think that liberal professors promote an evil agenda, eh? Because being (and subsequently teaching people to be) open-minded, critical, and free-thinking is evil? Is it evil because it contradicts the truly evil right-wing aspirations of opression and inequality? Or does it have some other sort of "evilness" attached to you? Yes, there are some who, while not being evil (even though I call Bush and your radical Republicans "evil," I do not sincerely believe that there is such a thing as evilness. Everyone is capable of, and does, some good things, some bad things. The radical Republicans are characterized by doing an abundance of bad things, as far as I'm concerned), are stupid, for lack of a better word, and contradictory, and may insult you (as the one poster said) for your views. They do not represent the majority of academics, and are really going against the open-mindedness that is embraced by all us leftist intellectual/academic types. The majority are not like that, and I have never encountered anything like that (and I am always watching for potential biases that my professors may have). Oh, and yes, some academics (perhaps even many) are Marxists, and do follow many of Marx's ideas. That does not make them Communists! Marx is more than just Communism; Marx was a political and economic theoretician, and Marxian views can be held by very right-wing people. One of the characteristic Marxian views is that the material aspects of life, and the processes necessary for their procurement and production, drive social life. You do not have to believe in Communism to follow this approach; in fact, I tend to equate many similar Marxian ideas with right-wing capitalist ideas. I reiterate that Marx was a political and economic (and social too, really) theoretician, and that his writings deal with a lot more than communism alone. Anyway, I think that that is about all that I have to say. Oh, and since the above poster mentioned it, I will say that I too am atheist. And I am not a liberal per-se. Liberals are all right, but I have many problems with Liberals too (in my case, the Liberal party). I am a Social Democrat. If I were an American, I would vote for Nader, basically. And while I am still an undergraduate student at this point, I look forward to becoming a leftist professor, teaching about openness and fairness, and showing where inequality first arose, and always noting that the egalitarian societies that pre-date states and chiefdoms were much better places to be. And, in fact, human nature (if there is such a thing) is to be egalitarian. Hierarchy and inequality is a result of surpluses (usually a result of agriculture) and exploitation of the masses by a few people. Sound familiar? Note: I did not touch the statement "Liberal professors are criminals because they promote an evil agenda. Hitler didnt break any laws either. We live in a morally bankrupt society because of liberals. And, btw, I am an athiest" and really only paid lip service to the statement "Liberal professors are criminals because they promote an evil agenda" because there really is little point in arguing against such stupid, bashful, and unproven (and unprovable) statements as these.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 3 (view)

US expanding Gitmo, establishing new detention centers and Pentagon CIVILIAN labor camps Posted: 2/25/2006 10:34:01 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm glad that I'm Canadian. That means that I can continue to go to, and perhaps hold, anti-war demonstrations, and other social-justice events, without having to worry about being labelled a threat. I mean, just how threatening, exactly, is a small group of people who do not believe that violence should ever be used for anything, and who would absolutely never commit any sort of act which intentionally killed anyone, let alone killed many people? Oh yeah, I know the threat: we are able to expose the lies which the governments use for their own acts of terrorism, those that go against the rest of the world, and we aren't willing to go along with their militarism and violence. We are a threat because we show everyone else that what the government is saying may very well not be the truth, and we have the power to change people's minds for the better. I sure hope that having Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister in Canada now doesn't mean that we begin to lose our rights, too. I am a member of the New Democratic Party, one of the opposition parties, and we are traditionally associated with being anti-war, anti-povery, support public institutions, etc. Perhaps they will label all of us threats because we actually want to help other people. Or perhaps so that they can have less people voting against them.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 11 (view)

Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process Posted: 1/25/2006 11:12:31 PM
What, the Electoral College? It is the stupidest system ever. And if you are refering to the election of a president separately from representatives, then all I can say is that we are not a Republic (unlike the U.S.), and I would like to keep it that way. There is nothing wrong with the parliamentary system that we have, just the way that the parliamentarians are elected. As as for the rural vs. city question, for one, it would be in all parties' best interests to put candidates from rural settings near the top of the list, so that they would get elected, and represent the rural areas. This would make the entire party more appealing. But really, regional alienation is a huge problem with our current first-past-the-post system. There is a rural vs. urban problem, as it is, and then each region of the country is mis-represented. What was it, 40% of Albertans did not want the Conservatives in, yet no seats in Alberta went to anyone but the Conservatives. The Bloc have 51 seats, for approximately 10% of the popular vote, while the NDP have 29 seats for 18% of the vote. 435,000 Maritime votes for the Liberals elected 22 seats in the Maritimes, while 625,000 votes for the Greens across the country elected none. The first-past-the-post system creates the regional problems and alienations. Parties with strong regional ties do well in our system, while parties whose support is more spread out, such as the NDP and Greens, cannot get as many seats (or any, for the Greens). So I would argue that the rural vs. urban issue would not be a problem, since proportional representation would actually seek to not have the regional problems we have now. Again, I ask this: how can it be such a bad system if almost every single modern democracy uses it, in most cases switching to it over 50 years ago? Are we just being stubborn? Or stupid? Or, as I think is probably quite likely, first-past-the-post gets the people elected, and once in power, they don't want to change the system. So I think that widespread activism and lobbyism is perhaps the best way to influence change in thbis matter.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 7 (view)

Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process Posted: 1/25/2006 9:47:53 PM
Yes, the West had more influence this election than usual. Typically, though, in order to form government, you have to win either Ontario or Quebec, and have a strong showing in the either. This is because of the representation by population system that we have. Ontario and Quebec have nearly 2/3 the population of the entire country, so they have more seats. Because of this, there have been elections that have been decided and overwith before the polls even closed in the west. Anyway, if proportional representation is so bad, I ask you this: why has every modern democracy except Canada, the U.S., and Britain gone to a proportional representation system, generally 50-100 years ago? It is certainly the better system, by far, and it is high time that we brought it in. A system like Germany's, which is mixed, would be all right, too. As for the minority governments, they aren't that evil, really. Minorities force everyone to work together, and to accomplish more through compromise, and this is much more democratic than the majority government system. And minority governments don't have to fall every year-and-a-half. If parliament would learn to stop squabbling over petty issues, and really just waiting for their turn to be in absolute power, and would learn to work together as a set of elected officials who are out to make goof policies for the country, then minorities would work fine. Be sure to visit this site: www.fairvotecanada.org

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

20s Dating... Posted: 1/2/2006 1:16:59 PM
I am looking for a long term relationship. I am not terribly interested in short-term ones, anyhow. As for marriage and kids (ours or hers), I am less sure at this point. I intend to do a Ph.D. (which I would probably start when I am 25 or so, as I have to do a Masters first), and that would likely entail a lot of business, stress, and likely being away for a period of several weeks (or even months) at least once during my research (and perhaps several times), not to mention shorter trips for conferences and such. It might not be so fair to subject a kid to that. So children is something that I would be more serious about when I am closer to completion of the Ph.D. But I am quite open to a long-term relationship at this point. I don't have much dating experience, and have only ever had one girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that I want to have many before settling down. I long for companionship most of all, and that would come with a relationship; less so with short-term encounters.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 9 (view)

Curious upper class versus middle class Posted: 12/7/2005 6:44:39 PM
It is stupid for people to judge anyone, especially based on how they look (racism is a huge problem, but there are other superficial things that people judge by, including clothing). I also commend you for being polite and gentleman-like. As far as I'm concerned, it is never appropriate to be rude or derogatory. If you are rude to someone who was rude to you, then they will think that whatever stupid view they have has been reinforced by their experience, but if you show them that they are wrong, by being polite at all times, then perhaps that will help them realize that they need to change. But yes, they seem like the really annoying sort of people who, when they do things like that, I lose patience with. While I have never experienced anything quite like that, I have felt like some people were acting like that towards me when I have been in Tim Hortons or whatever over the last two summers, when I was working for an archaeological company. To do archaeology, you generally don't wear great clothes (cause you don't want to ruin them), you wear work boots, and get quite dirty. So people assume whatever stereotypes they assume, and figure that wearing dirty clothes means uneducated, stupid, ignorant, whatever. Of course, being archaeologists, we have some level of education (I am still in undergrad, but my crew members often have finished their undergrad, and the crew leaders have a Masters or Ph.D). This brings me to one anecdote I have heard from someone who I have worked with. He was doing some archaeology near a road, and I guess was digging. Some lady and her son walked by and the lady said, not so subtley, to her son "See, that's why you should stay in school." And he had his Ph.D. It is bad enough that people have their ignorant thoughts, and even worse when they express them to others. Of course, having some education does not mean havign any smarts. In fact, you could probably say that we are quite stupid to do what we do. We spend 8 hours per day in the often very hot sun, digging, looking for things that will tell us about what people did in the past several thousand years (and most things we find are little bits of broken stuff). Doing all this hot, laborious, often tedious work, merely with the hope of finding something remotely neat, and having spent tens of thousands of dollars on education, and making 1/3 of what a skilled tradesperson would do. So crazy, yes, but I still love doing the archaeology...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 26 (view)

Your worst day to be single?? Posted: 12/6/2005 8:28:27 PM
I feel generally the way that coastergal does. For me, there is no specific day when I feel very unfortunate to be single, but generally they do follow a specific time: sunset. I often look up at the sky during sunset, or the moon if it is out in the day, and just think how beautiful those things are. And that is normally fine, but often in those situations I really wish that I had someone that I could intimately share that beauty with. Same feelings generally go along with thunderstorms, intense snowfalls, crisp, clear winter days, and any other time when I look out on the world and think "wow! That is beautiful." Or even at times when I just want to sit and watch a cute movie, or philosophize about anything, or whatever. Anytime that I am alone, and really wish that I wasn't alone at that moment. But I suppose that I belong in the Romanticist movement of the nineteenth century. Many of these feelings are more of a longing for experiences I've never had, not memories of happier times with someone. I've only ever had one girlfriend, and we didn't get to see each other very often, and weren't together for terribly long, so a lot of the above-described feelings have never been experienced while in the presence of a girlfriend. But I suppose I am young. Just rather anxious...

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

'alot' is not a word. I'm out of here. Posted: 11/23/2005 10:12:54 AM
Oh, the irony of discussing the grammar of other people, and then making a blatant mistake. If you are talking about people gathering in a small space, that would be a site. If there is a convention of several specific sights, as you said, then that would mean a beautiful sunset, a mountain vista, a clear blue ocean, etc. were all together in the same place at the same time. Sorry. But I had to. Now I just hope that I haven't made any horrible mistakes here! (Simple typos don't count.)

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 28 (view)

Where are the smart guys? Posted: 11/22/2005 8:57:59 PM
Well, I think that there obviously are some smarter people around (degree or no degree) and who remain single on this site, so we are out there. And I must agree that having a degree or degrees does not automatically make one smart. I actually don't consider myself all that smart (okay, modesty and a slight lack of self-confidence may account for that), but I am in my fourth year of my undergrad degree, and I am going on to Masters (hopefully), with a Ph.D. after that, and perhaps another Masters just for the hell of it (well, more because it would be really useful to doing field work). This doesn't make me any smarter than anyone who never went to university, or who did and dropped out, etc. Sure, I am doing rather well, but it really isn't that hard. And I can certainly understand the argument that I am quite stupid, because I am intending to spend the next 10 years in university (having been in school every year since I was 4, and say I will be in school until I am 32, that's a lot of time), spend a lot of money, time and effort to do so, and I will be doing this so that I can make a half-decent living, at best. I like that I am doing this, because money isn't that important and I look forward to contributing to general knowledge, but many people may consider this a stupid move. As for the one-liners, I never do a one-liner, and I still hear back from maybe 10% of the people that I email (here and at other free dating sites - yes, they do exist). I generally put a fair amount of effort into my mails, with no less than 10 sentences, generally, and I comment on the person's profile and how they seem as a person - I never comment on their looks. And as I say, I still hear back from very few. So writing more than a quick, stupid one-liner is no guarantee for success, either.

thorondor

Joined: 8/13/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

Bush asks U.N for action Posted: 10/22/2005 11:37:44 AM
What I find odd is the very fact that Bush is asking the United Nations to do something. Didn't he consider the UN irrelevant and circumvent them oh, about three years ago? Sure, a lot can happen in three years, but it always seems ironic to me that he seems to have no problem using the UN now to do what he wants to do, but when the UN thought somewhat differently than he did, suddenly the UN was useless.

Show ALL Forums