murraysovereign

There was a referendum a few years ago regarding implementing a version of that for BC provincial elections (Single Transferable Vote) but it failed to reach the threshold for approval. There was some talk of trying again, but I haven't heard of any plans. I think there will have to be a number of provinces implementing some form of proportional representation before there's a realistic chance of even discussing it federally. At the provincial level it just requires an act of the legislature, but federally it probably means amending the constitution, and that's a rat's nest no sane person wants to disturb...

You may be right. When I heard he'd reached the majority, my first thought was "shit" and my second thought was "oh well, maybe now he's got enough rope" But I think you're wrong on Insite - the mouthbreathers in the Reform wing of his caucus have been after shutting it down ever since it opened. They'll be out for blood now, and Harper will have to throw them a bone for fear that they'll turn on him. The Supreme Court could stop him in the short term, but I don't expect he'll let it rest.

I think most people are glad May finally won a seat, and they're at least bemused at the NDP's success. Add to that the near-elimination of the BQ, and it's all good. It's the "Harper Majority" part they're crying about. He was a smug, arrogant prick when he led a minority - he'll be insufferable now. Say goodbye to Insite, and hello to tankers in the Great Bear. Oh, and hello to God-knows-how-many-billions of dollars worth of new prisons to house the perpetrators of "unreported crimes."

That spread isn't too bad, compared with some past election results. Our system was not designed with parties in mind, and has evolved to handle two parties fairly well, but it breaks down with three or more parties splitting up large chunks of the vote. As for why it hasn't been fixed... well... how often do you guys try to amend your constitution, and how successful have you been? For instance, clarifying that business about the right to bear arms - I mean, c'mon, how hard could it be?

I'm OK with the Conservatives, generally, but Stephen Harper is a petty, mean-spirited hypocrite. It's guys like Harper that give assholes a bad name.

Elizabeth May doesn't have a wife. Iggy's wife is an actual alien, still awaiting her citizenship papers. I think she's Hungarian? Anyhow, she's quite open about her ineligibility to vote, but now I see the Conservatives are starting to attack her for it. Or more correctly, they're using her lack of citizenship to attack her husband, trying to make an issue out of it. She's being pretty classy about it; the conservatives not so much. Jack's wife is also a member of parliament, which always makes me suspicious, but I don't think it puts her in "lizard" territory. Harper's wife is married to Stephen Harper - she even had children with him. If she isn't a lizard alien, there's definitely something wrong with her.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I understand the reluctance to try imposing a no-fly zone over all of Libya. It requires an all-out aerial assault on radar and gun positions that are frequently situated in civilian areas, probably resulting in large numbers of civilian dead - which is exactly what you're trying to prevent. So I get that. But... what about a no-fly zone over rebel-held territory? That would be easier to impose because the people on the ground aren't going to be trying to shoot your planes down, so you shouldn't require nearly the same level of bombardment to secure the patrol area. That would at the very least prevent Quaddafi from using air power against the rebels. He could still control his own airspace, but he couldn't control the rebel's airspace, and that might buy them some time to get organized and equipped so as to have a fighting chance against the regime's ground forces.

Estimates are that the main island (Honshu?) moved 2.5 metres to the east. Holy crap that's a lot of energy being released. And does that mean the entire island has to be re-mapped to correct all the lat - long points? As of Friday, every legal survey, every property marker is off by about 8 feet.

...because they can't afford to buy lumber to build wood-frame houses, because their countries have no forests, so all the lumber has to be imported. Whereas mud and straw are basically free, so that's what they build with. Unless you want to start providing everyone in the world with free lumber you're not going to get a lot of compliance with a regulation that mandates wood-frame houses for subsistence farmers in Turkey and Iran.

I'm saying that the poor can't afford to build to 9.0 standards. Is that contentious? What to do about it? I don't know. I guess eliminating poverty from the world would be a big step in that direction. How do you propose we do that? I suppose we could come up with some sort of regulation that would make it illegal to earn less than, say, $40,000 per year. And then it would just be a matter of enforcing that regulation, cracking down hard on all those people who fail to comply.

So what do you suggest should be done to address the problem of people not being able to afford to build to your standard? They should not be allowed to live in any kind of shelter at all unless it's build to a 9.0 standard? As long as people can't afford to live in such structures, they will find a way to construct something they can afford to live in, whether it's up to standard or not. I'm not saying there's no place for building standards, and some degree of regulation of the construction industry. I'm just pointing out that your claim that building collapses in Turkey - and now Italy - can be stopped by tightening up regulations is simplistic and naive.

Actually, places with less surplus wealth available for earth-quake proofing homes and other buildings have huge casualty counts during earthquakes. All the regulations in the world won't help anybody if they simply can't afford to comply with the regulations. So your example of Turkey kinda falls flat, just like the mud brick huts they can barely afford to build...

For some reason I always feel compelled to preface this with the standard disclaimer that "I'm not a big "Country" fan, but..." one of my favourite things in the whole world is the sound of Emmylou Harris' voice.

I got 7 out of 10 - not bad for random guessing

In western democracies, protest is just a way of venting some bile while you wait for the next election. You show up for an afternoon in the park with a bunch of like-minded people, then go home for dinner and back to work the next day. In autocratic regimes - Libya being a timely example - such protests are the only shot these people have at effecting real change. It's not just a day in the park - they know going in it will be seen as a serious challenge to the authority of people who aren't accustomed to being challenged. These people don't get to wait for the next election, because there isn't one. This isn't bile being vented: this is the appendix rupturing. They know there's a very real likelihood of imprisonment, serious injury, or death. They don't do this unless they feel they have no other choice, and they know that once they've started they can't turn back. So they don't go home for dinner and back to work the next day - it's "in for a penny: in for a pound." They stay out in the park day after day, in the hope that enough others will join them to force the regime to give in. If protests were the only way out for we westerners, we'd take them a lot more seriously, and stick with them a lot longer. But we know we have recourse to ballots on a regular basis which, rightly or wrongly, takes some of the urgency and commitment out of the protest dynamic.

You don't? How come - is that some sort of restriction imposed on aliens or something? Anyhow, if you want MSNBC, you can have mine - I never use it.

And he's been to the middle east, so that means he's an expert. Also station chief in Kabul for a time, vice chair of the NSA, analyst with the Rand Corp, stuff like that, so if you're going to argue with him, bring your "A" game 'cause he's thought about this stuff for quite a while now.

I'm about 1/3 of the way through this book It talks about a lot of the arguments raised in this thread, and argues that, if Islam had never existed, the same east-west tensions around the middle east would still exist. They might manifest themselves in different ways, but the basic conflict would still be there. In some ways things might be better; in some ways things might be worse: in general things would be much the same as they are now. I only started reading it because I know the author, and was curious to see what his book was about. Now I'm looking forward to discussing it with him once I finish it. So pick up a copy, read it, think about it, and then when you come up to Squamish for a climbing trip this summer I'll introduce you to Graham and you can argue with him about it over a pint at the Brew Pub.

I did eventually receive an email - this afternoon - that certainly appears to be from Petzl. And unlike the web posting linked in the OP, the email does not contain the phrase "this is not a scam", so I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I'm a Petzl dealer, and we received no such notification from Petzl last week as claimed in the linked site. Also, in my experience any time an announcement includes the phrase "This is not a scam", well, it's a scam.

Companies have started developing ads with the specific goal of being rejected for airing during the Super Bowl broadcast. That way they are assured of huge viewership on the internet as "banned" ads, without having to pay a penny for broadcasting. I doubt either of the above advertisers ever had any intention of paying for airtime during the game.

Never mind - Mr Google answered my question. Looks like it's all good, finally.

Did they ever resolve the dispute over the rights/distribution/whatever-it-was for "Eyes on the Prize"? As I recall, that was a great series and I'd like to see it again, but it was stuck in some sort of legal quagmire for several years.