You need to look at the weird math they used to make up what a drink is. I.e. 1 drink = 0.5 oz. He even gives you 1 beer = 24 drinks. So, 40 drinks would be about 2 (12 oz.) beers. This seems reasonable if you use if for every money transaction.
The human condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition is an interesting thing to research, but I find it odd that you take offense that he posted it under a username rather than anonymously. There is no doubt most will find the post to be trollish and uncalled for in the discussion, but how is it really any different than from "Anonymous Cowered" ? The fact that he is not hiding who he is just means that for better or worse, he's not ashamed of who he is (not that the account actually identifies who you are).
I'm not defending the trolling, but I find it ironic that he is more confident in letting people know who he is when trolling than you, who is arguably on the higher ground, rebuking the troll.
It might be just my crack-pot theory, so take it with a grain of salt...
I would thing the main reason to want the hearings televised goes to how there scare tactics work. Sinister motives or not, reading articles and watching video have very different impacts on how people perceive the information. I can write a ton of articles saying pirates are thieves, copying music makes baby Jesus cry, you'll get a life sentence for not paying every time you listen to a song, etc; but the actual court preceding will be very different. Even if they make those exact claims, it will not be in the same tone as attack media will be.
Real court proceedings are very dry, and will not support the fear image that they want. Plus it will be clear that they are suing for copyright violation and not theft. I'm sure there are various other concerns too.
Not necessarily to contradict your point, but your analogy does not paint the picture that I interpreted from your second paragraph. Consider this;
I certainly would not want harm to befall my daughter, but like me, she still chose to be an organ donor. If the worst should happen, our loss might still bring a benefit to others. The pain aside, if she was killed in a say, a car accident, I would be fine allowing her organs to be taken to save someone else. As I'm sure the recipient might feel empathy for our loss, they would be happy to accept the life saving gift. Now say instead, they murdered her to take her organs to help the dying patient. Is it ok then?
Heartless as it may seem, this becomes a grey area. Because of course I'm opposed to the murder of my child, but I'm not opposed to organ donation. As I'm sure the recipient is happy to accept a donated organ, but a stolen via murder organ presents a dim light on it. Obviously if you are opposed to organ donors all together, this becomes a moot point; but if the act is just, then we are really talking about the circumstances involved.
Now I hope to never have to face this choice, but if the latter was true, would I still donate the organs? She is already dead, and any legal (or not) actions I take afterward will still not change that fact. So at what point is it a principle of ill gotten gains and as such ok to refuse the possibility to save someone's life? On the other hand knowing that in a way, I was supporting the "ends" of the horrid means, might not be a point I would be acceptable with. I'm sure the recipient might have to choose the line they are willing to live with as well.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that the issues does not hinge on a didactic set of options. There is of complexity of issues that are involved when considering the morality of ESC. Most people are not going to agree to murder people who are already living their lives (children or not), but the potential for life is the gray area. I'm sure the main contention is at the point of where life begins, as such, it becomes "killing a cell" to "murdering a baby." As a meat eater might be picky as to what types of meat they eat, and what is involved before it's given to them; to a vegetarian, there is only one choice.
With a Minister Of Industry making such troubling statements as "[Maxime] Bernier believes that consumers are best served by giving the dominant telecom companies maximum regulatory freedom" along with several questionable decisions on the Internet front, one must wonder if this government minister either fails to grasp what he is dealing with, or is in the pockets of big-telecom in Canada.
With 84% of the internet connections in Canada being controlled by only a few companies, this should concern Canadians, and be a wakeup call to all those who concern themselves with Net Neutrality.
With some ISP's in Canada already subjecting their customers to content or application discrimination, is a full blown attack on Net Neutrality that far away on this side of the border?
Does the government care? Or even understand?"