murraysovereign

There's recently been some research done on this. They started out thinking there's something about the trailers themselves that attracts tornados, but it turns out it's actually the bowling trophies in the window that does it.

I just checked - it works out to 11.25% US at straight exchange, before commissions and fees and such. But you guys keep forgetting about the Countervailing Duties. So add about 37% to keep the Commerce Department happy, and by the time we get across the border we've become 48.25%. Ain't "Free Trade" grand?

I thought Reagan's "service" consisted of making recruitment ads and training films. I don't think he ever saw anything like active duty.

OK, time for a little PoliSci 100 refresher: Individuals have "rights". But so do all the other individuals around them. Sometimes, one individual's rights come into conflict with someone else's rights. In order to maintain a functional civil society, we need some way of adjudicating the conflicts that arise when one individual tries to exercise their rights at the expense of another's rights. So we invented "government" to establish the boundaries, to write laws formalizing those boundaries, and to enforce them when necessary. In the present context: parents have rights; so do children. "Is this important work for national governments to be involved with"? Hell, yes, it's the one truly fundamental reason governments exist at all.

Settle down, Peter. If you hadn't pulled that article from a conservative Catholic organization with a clear bias in favour of whuppin', you'd get a more balanced view of the decision. In this case the Supreme Court was being asked to overturn the existing law, which says in effect that spanking is just fine within reasonable limits. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the law, so spanking is still fine within reasonable limits. Okay so far? But they did take the opportunity to clarify those "reasonable limits". Children under 2 should not be spanked, nor should children over 12, and at no time should spankings be administered using implements like belts or bamboo rods or baseball bats. Oh, and no head shots. All this ruling did was clarify the distinction between "spanking" and "beating"; between "discipline" and "assault". Maybe you'd prefer that parents be legally permitted to pound their children into comas if they see fit, because as parents that's their God-given right and the state has no business interfering. How would you have preferred the Supreme Court rule on this issue? No limits at all so long as you don't kill the little bugger, or perhaps you'd dispense with that limit also? Perhaps some limits, but with no clear definition? Or perhaps you have clear limits in mind, but your limits would be different from those the court has set down. I think the decision is pretty reasonable. I too think parents should be able to administer a swat to the behind on occasion without fear of criminal prosecution, but I have a hard time with allowing it to progress into all-out floggings and head punches. I have a hard time with spanking infants, too, due simply to the potential for lasting physical harm - ever heard of "Shaken Baby Syndrome"? It doesn't take much to cause permanent, even lethal brain damage in infants. Call me what you will, but I think things like that should be against the law. It sounds to me from your comments that your views are perhaps similar, so I'm puzzled why you're so horrified by this ruling. Perhaps you just accepted the "spin" of your chosen source without questioning their own biases because they provided exactly the (conservative) spin you were looking for?

He probably doesn't care if they dig hard , just so long as they do it slowly . As in: "I don't care what your final report says, as long as it isn't finished until well after Election Day." It gives him the perfect dodge for the rest of the year, because naturally it would be wrong for him to answer questions about his non-existent excuse for launching a pre-emptive war until the Commission of Enquiry has completed its work. It's classic political strategy.

What if you're really, really scrawny, like the Hilton sisters? Can you share a seat and only buy one ticket for the two of you?

Simply put, then, it appears you have a problem with democracy because sometimes people in a democracy spend time talking about things you don't agree with, and you feel that's wrong. They should only be discussing the things you agree with, and everything else is "patent BS" or "crap". Put more simply still: it appears you have a problem with democracy because it actually tries to be democratic, and you don't believe it should. And just as an aside: exactly what "critical, time sensitive issues" are currently before the California Building Standards Commission? Unless the building they occupy is presently being consumed by flames, I can't offhand imagine anything particularly "critical" or "time sensitive" that would preclude the Building Standards Commission from considering a proposal to amend the building code.

OK, now you're creeping me out. Why are you so curious about human-pig relationships? You're not Trask, are you?

I don't see a problem with this statement. The Chinese call it "Feng Shui": we westerners give it names like "interior design", "landscaping", and "architecture". And there's nothing in this article that says Feng Shui would become mandatory, as you seem to be implying: rather, they want the state building code amended to allow Feng Shui principles to be incorporated into designs. Why is that a problem? If you want to be able to use those principles in designing your home, but the building code won't allow it, maybe the building code could be revised. We allow for European design principles, why not Asian ones? That's all they're asking for here. Again, why do you feel this is a "problem with democracy"?

Hmmm... A group of people have suggested a different way of doing things. Their idea has been submitted to the appropriate body for discussion and debate, and if it's deemed worthy it will be introduced as proposed legislation. The proposed legislation will be discussed and debated, and then a vote will be held to determine if the legislation will be adopted. If enough people support the idea, it will pass; if enough people oppose the idea, it will be defeated. How, exactly, is this indicative of "the problems of democracy"?

In other words: "we've learned not to get all caught up in our own over-excited hype, and are now actually trying to verify some of the stuff we're hearing before going off half-cocked and making stupid, expensive, embarassing mistakes on the basis of rumours, half-truths and outright lies." At least, I hope that's one of the lessons they learned.

So far this week it's been: Susan Tedeschi - Wait for me Lucinda Williams - Rough Trade Oscar Peterson Trio - Night Train J.S. Bach - Brandenburg Concertos

We get around that simply by not charging provincial sales taxes on food. Clothing for kids under 15 is also exempt, as are books, newspapers and magazines. The Federal sales tax applies to everything except "basic groceries", which leads to some fairly silly situations. For instance, if you buy a muffin or a cookie, that's considered snack food, and is taxed, but if you buy a big bag of muffins or cookies, it's "groceries" and is not taxed. So how many do you have to buy before it's considered groceries instead of snack food? I think the bean counters in Ottawa finally decided that if you buy 6 or less cookies, it's taxable, but a package of 7 cookies or more is tax-exempt. Anyhow, there are ways of exempting certain classes of goods - food, kids' clothing, books, medicines - in order to ease the burden on the poor. There can also be things like a sales tax credit for low-income families, although that would require some sort of means test to determine eligibility. Or a rebate system that everyone is eligible for. Up to the first $5,000 of an individual's spending in any given year, you send in the sales receipts and get the tax back. You can claim for yourself, and up to some number of legal dependants.

In arguing against a graduated tax structure, though, he is effectively asking for preferential treatment for higher income earners. At the lower end of the income scale people have to pay out a far higher proportion of their income merely to survive. Food, clothing and shelter pretty much wipe out the paycheque, forget about health care or school supplies for the kids. To tax them at the same rate as someone at the top end means taking food out of their mouths, whereas taxing someone further up the scale at a higher rate just means they might have to buy a smaller SUV for a third vehicle or wait until next month before buying the 200" HDTV. So the Flat Tax thing has a few wrinkles that need to be addressed. It's an interesting idea, but it's not as perfectly fair as it may seem at first glance. I, too, like the idea of eliminating income taxes, and only taxing consumption, but it seems almost too easy. Does anyone know if it's been tried anywhere? I can imagine the first result would be the emergence of an underground economy of staggering proportions.

Fair enough - you go ahead and keep "the products of [your] mind", but first please give back all the public resources that have gone into it in the past, and promise not to use any more in the future. The products of your mind would be pretty paltry were it not for the years and years of education that got pumped into you at public expense. And the products of your mind would have a tough time getting to market without a state-supported communication and transportation system. And once they got there, there'd be no guarantee that someone didn't just steal them from you without the protection of a state-supported legal system and enforcement of same. Here's a little challenge for you, HRoark - see how far you can get into your day tomorrow without consuming some sort of public resource paid for by yours and others' tax dollars. That means no turning on the tap, no flushing, no walking down the sidewalk or driving down the street. Depending on where you live, it probably means no using electricity. No buying any merchandise that was transported on public infrastructure to reach you. No using paper currency or coins produced at a state facility, in fact no reliance on the monetary system at all. Everybody loves to bitch and moan about taxes cutting into their incomes, myself included. But nobody ever acknowledges that, without the infrastructure provided by tax dollars it would be virtually impossible either to earn an income, or to do anything with it once you did. So the greater the personal benefit you derive from that infrastructure, the more you should pay. Seems fair.

323.4, second best was 319.8. I wasted a fair few swings by deliberately trying to send 'em high so they'd auger in.

Check at the Abbotsford climbing gym (sorry, can't recall the name) or at Valhalla Pure (local gear shop @ 1993 Riverside Road). They should know what sort of guides are available. Maybe Coast Mountain Sports, too.

Was Clark not on the ballot?

The Howe Sound Inn has installed a "fat port", which this luddite assumes is just a different term for WiFi. They're not charging anything, just offering it as a customer service feature. It also would appeal to people planning conferences and such, so presumably they're hoping to see an overall increase in business, rather than making money by charging for the service itself. Similarly, I would guess the coffee shops are hoping you'll chose their shop rather than the one across the street, so they'll make more money in that way. From talking to the folks at the Brew Pub, it sounds like it doesn't cost much to set up, and once it's in place it's basically free, so they don't really have to charge people for access.

It sucks. It always sucks. No, really, it does. Go somewhere else.

Also, anyone who wants to go can PM me, and I'll put tickets aside for you.

Hmmm... Hubble, ... Awe, ... God, ... you mean like this?

Pub Club after the film is a great idea - I'll be there for sure. Can't comment directly on the beer situation, as I quit drinking some years ago. From what I've been hearing the beer now is dramatically better than it was a year ago. They hired a brewer from California(?) about 2 years back, who came highly recommended, with a solid resume and reputation, but he turned out to be a serious disappointment. So they got rid of him, and have since been training someone in-house to run the brewery. I believe he's doing a pretty good job, but again, I can't comment directly so am basing my impression on other people's comments in casual conversation. Hardly scientific, but there it is.

Scott, I think your problem perhaps has less to do with contradictory studies and conflicting test results than with the way it ends up being hashed out publicly in the media. It belongs in the scientific journals and peer-review panels, not alongside the weekend football scores in the local paper. But the local papers have learned that there's lots of really eye-catching stuff to be found in those journals, so they run it on the front page to sell papers and to Hell with context or in-depth background because they know no-one will read all the eye-glazing details and footnotes and qualifiers and explanations of methodology and margins of error and on and on. Dr. Zavos doesn't actually have any results to announce here - he's saying they've attempted to implant something in a woman's uterus, but they have no indication that it was successful. He's put together a press conference to announce that maybe something might have happened, but even he isn't sure yet. Can you say "Grandstanding"? This guy's no scientist, no matter how many initials he has strung out after his name: he's a media whore, pure and simple. And the media are playing right along with him, even though the most cursory examination reveals that he's actually got nothing to say. But he doesn't care, 'cause he's got his little hit of media attention, his 15 minutes of fame is under way, and a month from now he'll be forgotten. Real, actual research scientists are cursing him at this very moment precisely because so many people respond to these repeated media circuses by rejecting all scientists as a bunch of wound-up crackpots. Thousands of men and women the world over dedicate years of hard work to the pursuit of meaningful scientific advancement, usually anonymously, only to see their credibility shot to pieces because some nutbar shows up on TV waving a sheet of paper and ranting about "Cold Fusion in my toilet bowl". You're right to be disillusioned, but I think you misdirect it when you blame "science" as a whole. If you must blame someone, blame the glory-hounds and the media morons who publish their "announcements" without questioning anything. But leave the real scientists and researchers to their work.