supercanuk

I remember when this story first broke and laughed so hard. I went into work and explained it to my co-worker Fatima who is from Somalia and she responded: "Whats the big deal? My mom used to hit me with a shoe all the time!" lol I laughed at that too cause some of my other co-workers whose families are from the Middle East thought it was funny that people here thought it was so bizzare. Apparently the shoe-beatings are common haha i guess its like getting spanked here haha so in a way... that Iraqi journalist was giving Bush a spanking lol...

My job has sucked the life out of me, I just haven't really kept up with my internet duties, so i'm trying to get back into it, but i dont know how long i'll be able to keep it up. happy holiday's bud!

Milestone: The kid is back.

Obama wins nom I'm happy it happened.... are you?

I'm going to keep this brief. I think that if people find that they have an ethical objection to China's lack of human rights they should boycott their products. I wouldn't say it's pointless at all, there are many Chinese dissidents who are fighting and dieing without anyone knowing the scale and scope of the resistance right know because of Chinese suppression and oppression. To boycott their products would give the dissidents a lot of hope and probably the strength to continue what does appear an almost insurmountable task. There are many democracy activists and China and we just don't hear about them. They know the condition their in is terrible and unjust and if we recognize this as such the we don't need to support China by buying their goods. People said South Africa's apartide would never be beat, that white south Africans would always rule, but after years and years of struggle this was changed. Just because we may not see it in our lifetime does not make it fruitless, i think that a boycott starts small but governments eventually listen once more and more people come on side ethically.

Achievment: I forgot to post this but on Thursday I picked up my very first car... so im happy..

It'sa language issue but its a bit more then that in my opinion. The language is attached to the history of quite a lot of oppression in Quebec by an anglo-dominated federal government. I'm not saying its like that today, but early in Canadian history right up until the 1950's a lot of Quebecers were denied internal self-determination. By that i mean control over their own federal affairs within Parliament, there also weren't a lot of French in federal government up until then as well. I mean its not the oppression of say South Africa during the same period, im not saying the Canadian government were the absolute worst, im just saying that there is a history here of some pretty unfair treatment, so the paranoia isn't entirely unfounded. Now, many argue that Quebec is more powerful then ever before, especially in government, and whether that is true or not I don't know, i don't know what the evidence for that even is. Returning to the language issue i think that even if they don't speak Parisian French they have a tie to their language and culture because of anglo-domination. This is in there view, and whether we agree with it or not is totally irrelevant. If Germans came and dominated my country for 200 years i'd probably hold onto anything i could that reminded me of how things were before the Germans came, my language being just one of the things i'd hang onto. I think that's a pretty understandable position.

HAHAHA I forgot about that, greatest moment in our bored history lol

At his prime Jimmi Hendrix would have been pretty cool to see, also Sublime before their whole breakup thing.. annnnddddd Nirvana in its prime would have been pretty cool to see. I dunno, a lot of bands, shit.

I'm plenty calm!! Just cause i sing a song about Pork a few times doesn't mean im all aggressive about the pork issue. Porking however...

I never said he outright supported torture, i just said he supported dubious anti-torture legislation. Either way, he's quite conservative, he is against gay marriage, therefore I would never vote for him haha. That being said, i'm Canadian so my opinion doesn't matter in U.S. politics haha

He also supported the "anti-torture bill" which had a presidential signing statement which means essentially that "we don't torture unless the president says we can, then we do" haha and torture means what we say it means. Don't forget, they reinterpret international documents ALL the time, consistently say they are out of date or too vague. Case in point: Bush said that "outrages on human dignity" was too vague in saying what is torture. That being said, he condones simulated drowning, and other horrific interrogation techniques that the majority of the Western world classify as torture. But back to McCain, he's way too old to be president haha On another note, he loves President Bush, which is scary.

EDIT: I just want it to be known that I prefer Obama out of all the candidates for the presidency. The above argument is for arguments sake, i dont agree with Obama on a lot of things, but i agree with him being president more then any of the other mainstream candidates.

Mine last night was weird, but i knew i was dreaming. Totally fucked, i just remember this darkness and my mind being like, you're in a dream, get out of it, and i literally pulled myself out of a dream. Waking up, my head hurt and I was like whoah thats totally fucked, ive never consciously been in a dream where i had control, anad last night it happened, and i was able to know i was sleeping and wake myself up. Anyone ever get that?

I didn't say he's against big corporations, i said he's done a lot of work fighting against the encroachment of massive corporations on the civil liberties of Americans. Just because he has a lot of money and plenty of stocks in big corporations doesn't mean that he can't fight other big corporations, which do a lot worse for the country then Wal-Mart. He's a lawyer and a rich one at that, he's an effective consumer advocate, that doesn't make him against big corporations, it just means he's a voice for consumers. Just because he has support from Conservatives does not make him a conservative, he's pretty outspoken about the bankruptcy of the two party system in the United States since BOTH the democrats AND the republicans forced him out of ANY debates, even though he has the complete right to be in those debates. Just because conservatives helped him get on the ballot in 2004 does not make him a republican either. He doesn't have the big numbers and the multi-million dollar support behind him that the democratic and republican front runners do (and thats WHY they are considered "legitimate" candidates, it's the money, lets not get it twisted) which does not mean he shouldn't run. If nothing else he provides an alternative to the two party monopoly, an alternative voice, and something different to the Obama-Clinton campaign. What are the MAJOR differences between them? Honestly, these people are basically the same, with minor differences on policy, but nothing drastic. American history is filled with political parties that led to complete changes in American history, the Whig party for example. Nader running as a Green will help invigorate a lively debate if nothing else, and what else is democracy but freedom to run in an election and engage in an alternative dialogue and challenge the status quo? If he just personally irks you, then thats fine, but pointless i'd say it's not.

EEK! I can't believe what I'm hearing! Nader is one of the United States' greatest heros, he's been an advocate for the welfare of Americans for years! I'm not even joking, the dude does a LOT of really good work, not least of which was forcing auto companies to have seat belt's in their cars and fighting against the encroachment of massive corporations on the civil liberties of Americans. Him running isn't going to fuck up the process man it just gives people more democracy! The more candidates the better, everybody blames Nader for the 2001 election with Florida but if you look at the numbers he only got a fraction of the vote, not even comparable to the amount that got scrubbed off the list handing George W Bush the presidency! Not only that but the Supreme Court were the real ones in power for 2001, their the ones who decided Bush was the winner and stopped the vote counting. Nader is not going to win haha clearly, but I don't see him running to be a bad thing!

Except when he was plotting another "purge" :S Seriously though, this is hard, both were incredibly evil. Can one really choose which of these terrible people were worse? I think i'd ultimately go with Hitler because he caused probably MORE suffering than Stalin in terms of numbers, but this is a pretty cold way over measuring it.

This statement makes sense in a perfect world, but look at Reagan, he barely knew what the hell his policy advisor's were telling him to give the green light on, this makes the head of state ultimately responsible but that is totally meaningless in the U.S. If Americans who want to impeach a president for multiple reasons such as the international crime of aggression i.e. the invasion of Iraq, or torture, or wire-tapping, or the countless other scandals but get stonewalled by BOTH parties in Congress then this doesn't mean much. Both parties had Congresswomen/men implementing articles of impeachment for Bush, none were ever successful.... get a blowjob from an intern though... I'd say that again, on paper, this statement is true, but look at all the executive orders/privilages Bush has used, TONS and has actually been the most active executive in office in American history, they need the legislative branch and judicial branch yes, but when the judicial is filled with presidential appointees from other republican governments and the legislative branch lets you run roughshod over the Constitution, then, you can do what the hell you want. I'm not saying he can't, im saying he's choosen policy advisors that suggest he won't dramatically change American foreign/domestic policy, it will likely get slightly better, but it won't be anything drastically better then the U.S. has seen in a good 70 years.

Same. Barack Obama

I'd say if the CD means absolutely nothing to you then go crazy, but if it does carry some sort of sentimental value then keep it. It sounds like this is mostly for spending money for a few weeks, and well, those things never appreciate in value, but a signed CD does. Is there anything else you could sell for some cash? I would just stay away from stuff that COULD appreciate in value because if years from now you see that same signed CD on amazon for like 300$ you might kick yourself in the ass.

Yes he has, with me, and it was amazing.. For the first time this year i did go out to pick something up on boxing day, and no i didn't punch people out i just got a sweet deal on a television.

I can dig it.

I disagree haha the best line was when Will was dragging that alien in the desert(ish) place and was like: " I COULD HAVE BEEN AT A BBQ!!" and then ran back and starting kicking it again lol.

I certainly don't disagree. I mean incorrect as in, incorrect in context. Obviously i am speaking from the view of someone fairly (although not enough to call myself an authority by any means) experienced in academia so for my contexts its wrong. I'm not going to go out of my way and point out that the word in the context of "mankind" is sexist to every single person who uses it, but it is considered sexist. This is extremely true (haha i dont know why but that sounds weird) but it is quite correct, your success as a student depends on your ability to recognize and agree with the bias of the institution - they will make you conform - because its your grades on the line and its your success on the line. Obviously coercive institution, like many institutions - i don't think its always wrong either. I prefer the "liberal" values of the university, although i accept many probably don't. I certainly cannot speak for everyone in the institution no. I said that it would be epistemically irresponsible of me to use "mankind" in my academic papers. I didn't say it was wrong for me to use it in a quote of someone who lived in the late nineteenth century where "mankind" had common usage among all. I realize it's normal, and in fact, correct to use that term in say, the sciences. Anthropology for example, one would explain "mankind" and other "man-like" species who came before us. Again, my argument is one of context, that it would be incorrect and wrong for me to use it in my professional work. Again, the dictionary in context.

Using the universal criteria for arguments is something good to see on NF, one such invalid form of argumentation you cite is an appeal to authority. From my ethics book it quotes: "any appeal to authority is always secondary to premisses based purely on sound reasoning" It adds that if one is going to appeal to authority there must be a few things kept in mind: "We would hope the authority in question has the education or experience or both to be recognized as an authority. This person should not simply be recognized as an authority by the public but also by other peers in their profession. It goes on to name unbiased sources, etc, again, there are people in a position of trust usually professionals who it is okay to cite to support ones argument. In other words, its not always completely invalid to do this, and one cannot be a professional in every field, so one does have to trust certain sources. Unless you all want to become English professors any time soon i'd suggest stop arguing over something you are both (appeal to authority) practicing. Using the dictionary, is not necessarily an appeal to an authority, however, it is also not always correct in certain circumstances, i.e. in academia. Just because it is technically correct, does not mean it is acceptable or correct in academia, and this is not just the politics of professors, its the institution itself. Name me on legitimate University that would condone at a Graduate level (that means Master's) the use of the word "man" to describe both women and men? In the arts field this is just unacceptable not because it's politically correct, because its wrong to do so. It's also not accurate, or epistemically responsible. I'm a 4th year Law student going into my Master's and its considered completely irresponsible of me to use the term "mankind" when speaking in broad generality because its both archaic and insulting to people who are not men. Not to mention the reinforced patriarchy that term thinly veils. The dictionary has to be understood in different contexts if you want to continue in academia.