brettbh

Take this quiz to find out! You decide that your relationship with your partner is over. How do you break the news you are leaving? 1. Leave a tearful note on the table and slip quietly away 2. Calmly discuss with your partner the reasons with your decision 3. Go on national TV and attack them with a chair in front of a rabble of jeering, pumped-up, low-IQ, loudmouthed inbreeds You and your friends decide to have a game of football in the park. What do you need to take? 1. A ball 2. A ball and 2 coats 3. A ball, 50 crash helmets, 4 tons of body armour, 20 cheerleaders and a marching sousaphone band with a grand piano on a trolley You are driving along a country road when you accidentally run over a rabbit. What do you do? 1. Stop and see how badly injured it is, taking it to a vet if it is still alive 2. Carry on driving, but hope it is still alive, or if not, that it at least died quickly 3. Strap it across the bonnet of your car and drive home hollering, whooping and throwing empty Budweiser cans out of the window You wake up in the morning with a stiff neck after sleeping in an awkward position. What do you do? 1. Ignore it. It will probably loosen up as the day progresses 2. Take a couple of aspirins and get on with things 3. Take yourself to a prostitute-addicted TV evangelist faith healer in an ill-fitting wig, who will lay his hands on your head whilst screaming about the devil in front of an audience of gibbering fundamentalists What do you have for breakfast? 1. A bowl of Cornflakes, slice of toast and a cup of tea 2. A glass of orange juice, croissant and a cup of coffee 3. A bag of donuts with ice cream, a 32 ounce steak with six eggs sunny side-up, fifteen pancakes with maple syrup, ten waffles, five corn dogs and a diet root beer You and your partner decide to take the plunge and get married. What sort of ceremony do you have? 1. A quiet party with a few friends in a registry office 2. A church service followed by a traditional reception at a hotel 3. A minute long mockery at a 24 hour drive-through chapel in Las Vegas, presided over by a transvestite vicar dressed as Elvis Your 14-year-old son is going through a difficult phase, becoming disruptive at school and reclusive at home. What do you do? 1. Don't worry. It’s just a phase and will pass 2. Encourage him to get out more, get involved in team sports or join a youth club 3. Take him to an armoury and buy him an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons and enough ammunition to slaughter a small town You fancy a night in watching something funny on TV. What kind of comedy do you choose? 1. A sitcom like Faulty Towers or Father Ted 2. A sketch show like the Two Ronnies or the Fast Show 3. A thinly disguised morality play set in a massive lounge where the audience whoop for ten minutes every time an overpaid actor with a super-glued grin on his face makes an entrance to deliver a lightweight wisecrack Whilst getting ready for bed, you stub your toe on your wife's dressing table. What do you do? 1. Shout and swear a bit, after all, it did hurt 2. Make a mental note to move the table so it doesn't happen again 3. Immediately call a hotshot lawyer with an uptown reputation, and sue your wife's fat ass You are responsible for your country's presidential electoral process. Do you: 1. Count all votes and declare a winner 2. Count all votes and declare a winner 3. Let the press declare who's won before the votes are counted; then count only the votes which have been handed in by a deadline whilst not checking if Bud, the hillbilly sheriff of Nowhereville, has left several thousand votes in the trunk of his Chevy "by mistake", then force a recount of only some of the votes within just one state and allow only 12 seconds for the recount to take place; then be amazed that the recount hasn't finished by the deadline and increase the deadline by another 3.2 seconds; then ignore all votes and let 4 judges decide the result, making sure the judges all support the same candidate; then ponce around the world telling other countries how to run their own elections Answers... If you answered: mostly 1's and 2's then you are a normal well-balanced individual; mostly 3's and you're a Yank.

What stupidity! "But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble." I cannot abide Shrub. He's a monkey-faced moron and I really would have enjoyed it had that shoe hit him squarely on the noggin (by the way, was Noggin the Nog Swedish?). But to suggest that Shrub destroying the environment because he can is simply stupid. It's as stupid as suggesting that he is the son of Beelzebub. This sort of article simply makes greens seem like crazies and diverts people's attention from the real issues. Much as I despise Shrub, I couldn't even be bothered reading the article to the end. The author's idiotic opening paragraphs caused me to dismiss him as a nutcase. If he had any valid points to make, they were completely wasted.

Excessively liberal attitudes are also contributing to the problem. For example, at the end of last year, the BC Supreme Court struck down a bylaw which prohibited camping in Victoria's parks because it "violated the rights of the homeless to find a place to sleep that's protected from the elements." Within days of the ruling, a tent city had been erected in the city's main park, Beacon Hill. That pretty much put the park off limits to many people. Who wants to bring their kids into an area that's home to addicts and reeks of human excrement? The last time we were in the park was shortly before Christmas and we cut the visit short after our young nephew picked up a discarded needle in the children's play area and asked, "What's this?" Homelessness is something for which we undoubtedly need to find a solution, but the fact is that the majority of the homeless are in that position not due to being down on their luck, but due to addiction problems. Permitting addicts to sleep in city parks is not going to solve the problem, it's simply going to make life unpleasant for everybody else.

>>Experiencing such pain and misery like the people living in Gaza does every day for such a long period of time I dont doubt that I also would want to see those responsible dead.<< The misery and pain of the Gazans is not the cause of the conflict; rather, it is that Hamas want Israel to cease to exist. Were Hamas to obtain weapons that would enable the obliteration of Israel, you can bet your bottom dollar that those weapons would be used. >>When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK, European countries and even some Arab regimes", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.<< Why do some Arab regimes support Israel? It's because Hamas is alligned organizations such as Islamic Jihad which not only want to see Israel obliterated, but which also want to see the governments toppled in the Arab nations which they consider to be too Western.

Indeed they are. I live in a small (popluation of about 1,500) and isolated village in the Canadian wilderness where everybody knows everybody and is friendly and polite. Despite the obvious inconveniences assoicated with such a remote location, I really cannot imagine living anywhere else. I recently had to spend some time in Seattle and Dallas and ... urgh ... couldn't wait to get back home. And I was only in each city for 24 hours! I felt exactly the same way when I last returned to the UK.

Worrying, but not at all surprising. Remember, these are the same right-wing, Christian nutcases who want the concept of "intelligent design" to be taught as a science in US schools.

Sometimes it is said that were the Arabs to put down their weapons there would be no more war; but were the Israelis to put down their weapons there would be no more Israel - and there is certainly truth in that statement. "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity." Fathi Hammad, Hamas. Hamas considers Palestine - which includes the territory currently occupied by Isreal - to be Islamic land and accordingly consider Israel to be illegal occupants. They want Israel to cease to exist. Permanently. Their only concession on that point has been to offer a 10 year truce should Israel withdraw to the lines that they held prior to the war in 1967. ... and what was the purpose of those tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, Simon? The beehive of tunnels beneath the tent city has become a vital lifeline for Gaza, giving its 1.4 million residents a way around an Israeli blockade that has choked off supplies of gasoline, fresh meat and consumer goods ranging from washing machines to iPods. It may also turn into a bombing target for the Israeli air force following the expiration of a six-month cease- fire with the Hamas leaders who rule Gaza, Israeli strategists say. “There is hardly any economy left in Gaza without the tunnels,†says Omar Shaban, an economist who runs a consulting group in Gaza City. “It is distorted to have an economy that is so completely dependent on the black market, but it’s a natural result of the borders being closed.†Ninety percent of all products entering Gaza each month --as much as $40 million worth of contraband -- comes through the tunnels from Egypt, Shaban says. The underground network is also a crucial source of revenue and weapons for the militant Islamic Hamas movement, which charges a one-time digging fee of 11,000 shekels ($2,750) for each tunnel. More. Some comments from an Al Jazeera interview with Hamas' deputy head Abu Marzouq: Al Jazeera: Under what conditions will Hamas agree a ceasefire with Israel? Abu Marzouq: We have three conditions for any peace initiative coming from any state. First, the aggression of the Israelis should stop. All of the gates should be opened, including the gate of Rafah between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Finally, Israel has to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. More. What if Gaza/Hamas were next to Sweden? What if they wanted Sweden to cease to exist in the way that they want Israel to cease to exist? What if they continuously launched missiles into Sweden? What if they continuously sent suicide bombers into Sweden (List of Hamas suicide attacks)? Would you not want your government to block Gaza's border so that weapons couldn't be brought in and the suicide bombers couldn't get out? What if, even after the border had been blocked, they continued to bring in weapons via a series of tunnels? What if they wanted a unilateral ceasefire under which Sweden would have to agree to stop attacking them while they would not have to agree to stop attacking Sweden? What if they were being supported and helped by other terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad which had a single objective: to destroy the state of Sweden? Tell me, in these circumstances, what would you want the Swedish government to do, Simon? What would you expect them to do if terrorists were killing members of your family because they wanted Sweden to cease to exist as a country?

So, you do have the Wurzels? ;-) You could say the same thing about cars for which parts are no longer made, Polaroid Instamatic Cameras for which film is no longer made or VHS players for which movies are no longer released. Progress!

Erm, actually Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committee and whatever other extemist movements are in the Strip have been launching rockets into Israel pretty much continuously since 2005. "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity." Fathi Hammad, Hamas. Sorry, but Hamas are certainly not innocent victims.

Yup. The Israeli response certainly is not proportionate, but then that's usually the case in military situations - one side invariably has the upper hand. Were Hamas to have more powerful weapons at its disposal, then I'm sure the Israelis would be being hit much harder. Simon's sympathy for Hamas is similar to the sympathy that some Americans used to have for the IRA - it's based entirely on ignorance and would soon evaporate were he to find himself living in the middle of the conflict. One of my first jobs was in Ireland during the so-called "Na Trioblóidí" (now there's an understatement for you!) and I encountered irrational bigotry on a daily basis. Even the simple act of buying a pack of smokes in a store could be a challenge - on numerous occasions, they refused to serve me until I explained that I wasn't English ("We don't have any, Sonny. What? You're not? Well, why didn't you say so sooner? Benson and Hedges, was it?). Remember the Holy Cross riots in which Catholic primary school children were stoned and spat at (and had to be protected by police with riot shields) because they were walking through a Protestant area to get to their school? They were some of the most shocking scenes that I have ever seen. Equally shocking was that there was an alternative route to Holy Cross school which didn't pass through the Protestant area. But some Catholic parents chose not to use that route and to instead expose their young children to a traumatic gauntlet of hate each day. Racial and religious bigots - be they Irish, Muslim, Christian or Jewish - deserve no sympathy whatsoever. "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity." Fathi Hammad, Hamas.

Both!

So, what other humiliating music do you have? Kylie? Jason? The Wurzels?

"Oops!...I Did It Again"?

Yup. And that needs to stop.

I'm simply saying that the area is a political mess and that it will be impossible for a solution to be found until both sides manage to overcome their racial/religious bigotry and hatred.

>>Actually, you are being critical<< No, not at all - and sorry if it sounded that way. >>Already you can see places selling cute shirts that send messages about conservation, recycling, upcycling, reducing, reusing..... like I said - that is the foundation, the beginning.<< I really do not think that it's either a foundation or a beginning; it's simply people attempting to make money from a current trend. Remember the CND shirts that were oh-so popular a couple of decades ago? The companies that made the shirts were certainly not supporters of nuclear disarmament (they were simply companies that made shirts) and people wore them as fashion statements rather than political statements. The shirts didn't help the campaign for nuclear disarmament and people eventually abandoned them in favour of shirts which supported other trendier causes - such as today's green movement. >>In order for people to give up their cars and travel less changes in urban development and planning must be addressed.<< I do not think that the majority of people will ever voluntarily give up their cars or that the majority of people substantially reduce their energy consumption. Accordingly, the solution is not to encourage people to do those things; rather, it's to encourage the development of energy-efficient cars and the provision of clean/renewable energy. >>and what are governments, but people??<< People with an agenda.

In September, BC's electricity company introduced a tiered charging system under which people pay one amount for the first 1,350 kWh of electricity used and then a higher amount for each additional kWh over and above 1,350. The scheme is supposedly intended to encourage people to use electricity. But, of course, it will not. In the north of the province where winter temperatures dip to -30C/-22F, people use more than 1,350 kWh simply to keep their (usually highly insulated) homes warm. The scheme is simply a money-grab. And I wonder why people are suspicious about green initiatives?

As was the case with Ireland, a solution could be easily found if both sides were to overcome their religious intolerance and bigotry.

I really don't think that either side can be regarded as innocent in this conflict.

Me? I haven’t done anything that has a substantial impact on my lifestyle, but then I do not believe that individual lifestyle choices will ever provide a solution to our environmental problems. Drinking eco-beer is not going to help the environment. Making a sweater out of the hair dropped by your Chihuahua is not going to help the environment. Refusing to buy a Christmas Tree is not going to help the environment (in fact, as we discussed in another thread, it may actually harm the environment). And putting MountainHiker in a pair of methane-absorbing charcoal-lined underpants is not going to help the environment. The only real way for people to help the environment is for them to push their government into creating policies which encourage the development and adoption of environmentally-friendly technologies. In Canada, the Green Party proposed a carbon tax and such a tax has now been implemented here in BC. This is completely the wrong approach. People will still use exactly the same amount of energy, they’ll simply end up paying more to get to where they need to go and to keep their homes warm. What’s really needed is more investment in public transportation, more investment in renewable energy sources, more grants for companies working on energy-efficient technologies, more tax breaks for energy-efficient technologies, etc., etc.

I'd be fascinated to hear why you consider the conflict to be motivated by anything other than religion!

Sorry, but that's complete and utter BS!

Indeed. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people would not support actions/policies which caused their current lifestyles to be impacted. While most people probably feel that burning coal is not the best way to produce energy, they’d rather see coal being burned than to face an energy shortage. Similarly, while most people probably know that SUVs are not the most environmentally-friendly vehicles, not many are willing to trade in their SUV for a Smart car. People are willing to do the easy and painless stuff, but are unwilling to do the not-so-easy and not-so-painless stuff. Example: in the post How did you green your holidays?, Treehugging_family talks about wrapping gifts in old magazines and using a rosemary bush instead of a Christmas Tree. Ok. Great. But then in her blog, she talks about jumping into her car to take the kids to the airport to catch a flight. Hmmm. Cutting out the car ride and the flight would probably have had a much more positive environmental impact than cutting out wrapping paper and a Christmas tree. But that wouldn’t have been so easy and painless, would it? We need to accept that, like Treehugging_family, the majority of people are not willing to do the things that would substantially reduce their environmental footprint. Yup, they may be willing to do the small stuff such as using recycled paper or energy-efficient lights, but they are not willing to give up their cars, travel less or abandon their TVs and tumble dryers. Note that I am not being critical of Treehugging_family here. The majority of people - myself included - are unwilling to radically overhaul their lifestyles, give up modern comforts and start living like the Amish. So, instead of encouraging people to reduce their energy consumption (which simply isn't going to happen in any meaningful way), we need to work on encouraging governments to develop environmentally-friendly policies and support environmentally-friendly technologies through grants, tax breaks, etc., etc.

Religion is cetainly a wonderful thing, isn't it.

I can only assume that you have never had to deal with Dell's (US-based) call center staff.