The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN’S to VICTORIA.
HALIFAX HERALD - Fabulist’s weather
MONTREAL GAZETTE - Down kids are not just burdens
OTTAWA CITIZEN - Body politics
OTTAWA CITIZEN - Clone wars
OTTAWA SUN - End corporate welfare
TORONTO SUN - ‘Fix’ doesn’t deal with dual citizens
NATIONAL POST - The Toronto Star's poverty scam
TORONTO STAR - Putting a price on pollution
TORONTO STAR - Cameras on justice
TORONTO STAR - Balance fertility panel
TORONTO STAR - Fairly sharing Canada's wealth
LONDON FREE PRESS - Distracted drivers a danger
K-W RECORD - Bush is gambling on the Iraq war
K-W RECORD - A stunning project
WINDSOR STAR - Farm subsidies: WTO is right battleground
WINDSOR STAR - Making way for Khan
SUDBURY STAR - Scottish voters set to elect separtist party; But that doesn't mean all Scotsmen want out
CALGARY HERALD - Women left on the sidelines
In the shark-infested world of politics, men have all the bite
CALGARY SUN -
EDMONTON SUN - Fixed vote dates
LETHBRIDGE HERALD - Toxic nation still largely a mystery
VANCOUVER SUN - People of all races must work together to achieve King's dream
Canadian aboriginals say while tolerance is growing, skin colour still a big factor
They took her babies and we don't know why
Government can’t sacrifice competition for speed
"It is one thing to speed up the defence procurement process; it is quite another to abandon the competitive process altogether."
Part 1: First there must be peace (3 pages)
Part 2: 'It's going to take time' (5 pages)
Pakistan to hold off on landmines, MacKay says
QUESTION PERIOD VIDEO
Diplomat's death still felt by Cdn troops
Canada mum on giving U.S. no-fly names
Experts agree government will share data with American officials
Ottawa aims to soften U.S. arms-contract rules
'It's discrimination, pure and simple,' barred Syrian-born technician complains
Canada reviews testing for U.S. cattle imports
Druggists calling for ban on exports to U.S.
Groups warn of risk to Canadian supply
Oil refinery plans buck curbs on carbon
Detection of drunk driving goes high-tech
Pork aplenty: A new CTF study tallies the billions doled out by Industry Canada in corporate welfare
HEALTH CARE RELATED
Defective gene found by Canadian-led research team
Medicalizing a fashion fad
There's ample reason to fear breast implants, but they have been approved
Wheat board asks Federal Court to fast-track challenge of 'gag order'
Killings abroad go unsolved
More than 250 Canadians have been slain outside the country since 2000, the Star has found. Many cases remain unsolved. Relatives say Canada isn't doing enough to protect its citizens http://www.thestar.com/News/article/171171
POLITICS IN THE PROVINCES
Tory caucus meets to chart new course
PM's pledge to Quebec riles other provinces
'Saskatchewan does not think we should be balkanizing the country'
Running back to Saskatoon
PM suspects government defeat on next budget
Van Loan faces challenges as Harper steps up democratic reform
Baird must put his words into action: Suzuki
Fiscal imbalance, Kyoto are key issues: BQ, PQ
New Tory lent $179,946 to ex-Liberal associates
Liberals, Bloc look to reopen trust tax question
Bloc, PQ plot joint strategy for federal, provincial votes
Weston wins Tory nomination
Clement removes carbon footprint
Wheat board asks court to fast-track challenge
Pharmacists push to ban export of drugs to U.S.
Storm brews over drug strategy
Ottawa putting too much emphasis on law enforcement, medical experts' report says
Official documents: PSHRMAC's big policy-making powers are 'at risk'
Lobbyists Registrar faces review in Federal Court: documents
No program and no plan
Enlisting in a war that doesn't exist
Canada terror case hearings open; law in focus
`Green' can't be mere fad, Suzuki warns
The most populous country in the world is moving to a car-based economy, which is more bad news for global warming
Global warming brings risks
Bad news for Manitoba Hydro: atomic energy is surging ahead
Why Canada's greenhouse gas record stinks
OPINION AND INFORMATION
Ottawa's new power couple
Love ... and hate: 9/11's echoes and mixed bliss
Sierra Club unimpressed with PM's invitation to Schwarzenegger
Taxpayers have right to see Khan's report, critics argue
Time for Canada to speak out on Gitmo
Public should demand a 'Green Fleet Initiative'
If government won't do it, major firms that own vast numbers of trucks might opt for alternative fuel
Feminist revolution may be good for manly men, too
The left, feminists and Afghanistan
Dérèglementation des services de téléphone: les consommateurs sont inquiets
Racisme, xénophobie, méfiance?
L'entrevue - Elizabeth May, la verte qui monte
Le capitalisme éthique, un principe fragile
Le camp souverainiste fourbit ses armes
Lacunes de gestion à la Défense nationale
Fiducies: le PLC et le Bloc veulent des audiences
La police autochtone n'inspire pas confiance
Les Canadiens appuieraient un allégement fiscal lié à l'environnement
Les efforts de reconstruction ont été retardés par la mort de Glyn Berry
Americans have learned that the Iraq war was a disastrous mistake. But they have yet to be able even to imagine the truth about the war on terror more generally.
As long as politicians and pundits justify alternatives to the present course in Iraq by invoking the need to fight the war on terror more effectively, the United States will remain, as Osama bin Laden observed in his November 2004 videotape, trapped in a maelstrom of waste, worry and witch hunt that "bleeds America to the point of bankruptcy." http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=30a4c85e-441f-45f9-b21f-f1a3e9b5cc34
Moreover, Canada is committed to closer North American security integration as part of the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada, Mexico
and the United States, Mr. Wark said.
"One of the key elements of that is going to be information sharing on watch lists and trying to make watch lists congruent."
Martin Rudner, director of Carleton University's Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies, said the no-fly list illustrates a classic Canadian dilemma.
"The public actually do want sovereign control over the watch list, and also we want to be able to enter the United States without passports and visas," he said.
"Sorry, those two you can't have together."
The continuing Canadian conundrum
The continuing Canadian conundrum is the nature of our relationship with the United States of America. There are those who would have us harmonize and integrate. This is in process through meetings such as was held in Banff in September is available for you to peruse thanks
to John Halonen who posted it to us in his contribution to the Digest to-day.
You may agree with the following "central recommendation" that is being worked toward, or you may not. Whichever view you hold or are
inclined toward you will, unless I'm mistaken, agree it ought to be a matter of nation wide discussion or consideration.
The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would
be defined by a common external tariff, and an outer security perimeter.
page 7 Building a North American Community http://canada.usembassy.gov/content/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf
A poll has been established as I suggested earlier at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com offering three options to this statement :
The USA is very nice for a foreign country. Let's keep it that way.
Your participation is encouraged.
Here we are 5+ years after 9/11 events, dealing with lots of "amber alerts" (read duct tape, contaminated water with hydrogen and handling white sugar spills on floor) and we are heading slowing but sure towards dictatorial state of GWB.
God have mercy on our souls! With our silence we just deserve this!
On a side note, thanks to the federal government for generosity of paying $10 millions to protect the opium trade. Way more important than protecting the manufacturing industry here at home (last week more than 450 jobs were lost in KW manufacturing industry).
Have a good week
of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario
Subject: Greetings and "Books"
First: many thanks for the continuing DD. You are doing a most excellent - apparently altruistic - public information sevice. I appreciate it no end, even though I seem to have contributed almost nothing to it. For those of us who don't delve too deeply into the seemingly endless ramifications of things, the DD nevertheless gives us a good world overview.
Of particular interest in the DD of Jan. 13 was the letter by Raymond Denson about his correspondence with Martin Levin, editor of the "books" section of the Globe and Mail. The name Michel Chossudovski was familiar as one of the names of writers of books that were not reviewed. I saw some of his lectures on video a few years ago when I was supporting variously Connie Fogle, Paul Hellyer and David Orchard at different times. The letter poses a good question. Why aren't the books of some of the more controversial political writers reviewed? So since I buy the Saturday Globe and Mail especially for the books section, I think I will make some further attempt to find out what the criteria is that determines whether or not a book gets ignored. If I learn anything I will have something to contribute to the DD!
So thanks again Joe for the DD, and a very happy new year. Sincerely. John Nesling
I rarely get the chance to read the DD in my inbox each day, and so I don't exactly know what has been said or debated as of late about many issues, such as Afghanistan... but I wanted to vent a little.
For me, Bush's decision to do the "surge" or escalation means one thing - there is no point in our being in Afghanistan, and if the US is going to commit what few reserves it has left to Iraq (and which will only make things worse in Iraq), not enough time and effort will be going towards Afghanistan.
This is the perfect excuse for us to say that the dynamics have changed, and this calls for us and other allies, (and the Democrats) to call for a new policy:
Accept that the only way there will be peace in Iraq is if the country is divided into 3 states, with the US using its forces to secure the internal and external borders rather than being in Baghdad and other cities where their presence only fuels the violence and the insurgency, and to move resources to Afghanistan.
I don't have any hope that Harper, or Dion for that matter, would be so bold as to take this approach - as a nation we hate to "rock the boat" or stick our necks out - we like to blend in with the crowd, but if we were so bold as to say that if the US doesn't do something in Iraq that will ring the violence to an end quickly and allow them to send more troops to Afghanistan, then we will pull our troops out because the situation is hopeless (particularly considering the role of Pakistan) and we would be better putting our efforts into Darfur or something where we can make a difference.
Subject: Elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board cannot be undone!
I think the following article is pretty important. People should know that the Conservative's short-sighted calculation of ending the Canadian Wheat Board is about as safe as trying out a hangman's noose on oneself. Later is too late to undo it.
So why are they doing it? Follow the money and it looks like...NOT wheat farmers, but only some big U.S. grain outfit stands to gain! Then I would guess that the wheat farmers will in the future face that company's power to set the prices, and obviously their aim will be lower, not higher prices for farmers. But maybe the Conservatives think the foreign companies buying from producers here need a leg up?
Where I come from in an agricultural riding in southern Ontario we don't grow much wheat, just lots of other crops and livestock. But our local Conservative MP, Diane Finley, committed herself very pointedly at the last election to SUPPORT agricultural supply management. I think the farmers here will see the writing on the wall, that, if the Wheat Board is yanked, all the several other supply management systems evolved here in central Canada will be yanked in the future. It surely is discouraging that government doesn't care about farmers, and has no long term plan that can be counted on.
Zeb Landon, Haldimand Norfolk
Once it's gone, it's gone forever
Sun Jan 14 2007
By Lawrence Herman
WE should be clear about one thing.
Ending the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board as the Conservative government plans to do (for barley and possibly for wheat), will represent a final, definitive act under international law. If Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has his way, a future Liberal government won't be able to undo the change, notwithstanding what Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion says.
The reality is that, if the gates of private party selling are opened, they just can't be closed under rules of international trade.
Once it loses its monopoly powers as a State Trading Enterprise or STE, the CWB can't get those powers back under international trade law -- not unless the federal government plans to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to Canada's chief protagonists, the U.S. government, American grain handling companies and the northern tier American grain farmers.
Subject: Loosey Goosey, off-kilter, slightly panicked & therefore distracted
Since September 12, 2001 what concrete verified actions have been taken by terrorists in North America validating the actions of our governments running around like a gaggle of Goosey Loosey's keeping their citizens in a constant state of agitation, altering their ways of life, increasing their own discretionary powers?
This question has been raised several times otherwise than on the Digest with no information to this point being forthcoming.
Your query brings to mind the last bits of Little Red Riding Hood
"Big Brother, what big arms you have!"
"All the better to hug you with, my dear."
"Big Brother, what big legs you have!"
"All the better to run with, my child."
"Big Brother, what big ears you have!"
"All the better to hear with, my child."
"Big Brother, what big eyes you have!"
"All the better to see with, my child."
"Big Brother, what big teeth you have got!"
"All the better to eat you up with."
While you're paying attention to the TV news "information"
Joe: Here is the main point of Kopala's article:
"Two new books challenge this view [that social injustice and poverty cause crime]. The first, A Land Fit for Criminals, by retired probation officer David Fraser, scathingly exposes a liberalized British justice system that allows the benefits of crime to outweign its costs. The second, The Great American Crime Decline by Franklin E. Zimring brings the antiseptic discipline of a statistician to bear on declining U.S. crime rates."
The Ottawa Citizen
Copy to: Ms Margaret Kopala, Columnist for The Ottawa Citizen.
Mr. Joe Hueglin, Former Progressive Conservative MP from Niagra Falls: Joe, Can you put this in your Daily Digest for information of others.
More guns equal more murders : US study
Growing inequality and lack of economic mobility explain high crime rates in US: "America is developing an aristocracy of the rich and a concomitant serfdom of the poor"
Re "Lock your doors," by Margaret Kopala (January 13).
Right-wing commentators like Margaret Kopala seem to forget that in the United States, with its emphasis on punishment without reform to deter crime, crime rates are highest among the developed nations and they are rising.
American states where more people own guns have higher murder rates, including murders of children, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health reported on January 11. The study, certain to provoke arguments in a country where gun ownership is an important political issue, found that about one in three US households reported firearm ownership.
"Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes," said Matthew Miller, assistant professor of health policy and injury prevention, who led the study. His team used data from a US Center for Disease Control and Prevention survey of 200,000 people in all 50 states.
After dividing the states into four groups based on how many households had guns, the researchers found the states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 percent higher than states in the lowest quartile.In states with the most guns, firearm homicide rates were 114 percent higher, the researchers reported to be published in the February issue of Social Science and Medicine. More than 200 million guns are privately owned in the United States, according to the Justice Department. In September, the FBI released 2005 figures showing violent crime had risen 2.3 percent nationally–the first increase in four years.
With the gap between rich and poor rising steeply, lack of economic mobility may be a factor for the rising crime levels in the United States. Fifty five per cent of Americans who were in the bottom 20 per cent of the U.S. income distribution in the 1960s were still there in 1990. As Will Hutton, columnist for Britain's The Independent writes: "America is developing an aristocracy of the rich and a concomitant serfdom of the poor. Not only it is deluding itself, it is deluding the entire globe before which it holds itself up as the economic and social model to emulate."
The high levels of social stratification and low levels of economic mobility in the US have produced a large underclass with limited economic prospects in a country where the top corporate incomes have been rising exponentially. This helps explain why violent crimes in the U.S. is far above that in most high-income countries: US homicide rate is 12.4 per thousand, compared with only 1.6 per thousand in the EU and less than one per thousand in Japan. In 1997, one out of every fifth adult American males was in jail, and one in twenty was on parole, which is around ten times the rate in Europe. The growing inequality in income distribution is reflected in growing inequalities to access to education. Studies in the US over many years have constantly shown that two-thirds of educational achievements is explained by family income.
MAHMOOD ELAHI ,
Subject: For fun reading: Vive les animaux Vive
Do cats as well as dogs need licenses? I know my many neighbours’ numerous cats leave footie prints all over the hood on my car – they like to curl up and enjoy the heat.
But alas for the cats, the neighbourhood raccoons scare them off. Maybe the coons need licenses too. I see those trespassing coons waddle sleepily through my backyard in the morning, with no regard for my property. They fall over each other like drunk’n sailors they are so sleepy in the morning – even running into each other and rolling over each other they are so drowsy. Surely they too need a license to correct their ways.
Of course, there are also the hundreds of small birds in the neighbour’s thick tree – maybe we should demand a cage be put around it to keep them birds from pooping on my driveway. Hmmm, but the neighbourhood hawk does seem to keep the small birds hiding in the tree so the little ones don’t come out and maybe aren’t a problem. Maybe we should get animal control to do something about the hawk? But then again, the local seagulls chase the hawk away and a nightly summertime chase halfway across town can be seen. So maybe we need to get someone with a baseball, say a major league baseball player, to throw a ball at the seagulls. Of course, when he hits a seagull we can fine the baseball player. No matter how we do this we will make someone pay.
But I also say, Vive les animaux Vive.
PS: I wonder what the deer roaming freely around town think of Victoria’s wildlife controversy? Should I have also considered what to do about the Orcas swimming in the Strait? I once had my BC ferry ride interrupted by 20 minutes while we waited for a pod to past in front of us. Thoughtless creatures.
POLITICAL SPIN AND REALITY -- "This World in Arms ... is Not A Way of Life In Any True Sense."
"Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friend."
There is an almost sanctimonious assumption that those who serve in our armed forces may be better than those who do not, or have not served, because they put their lives at risk for others.I support that assumption when the cause for sending our Canadian troops to War in any foreign land can be well justified by plausible criteria. For example: a direct threat to the security of the Canadians' life, or to our freedoms. Is either Afghani's or Iraqi's way of living a threat to North Americans? When Canadians awake daily, does the first thing that they think is that the Taliban will kill them?
It is rather presumptuous to believe, as the leader to the South believes, that one can militarily force people in a distant land to change their traditional way of living by entering that distant land, killing their citizens, and trying to radically change their traditional way of living, while at the same time hoping that none of the killers are themselves killed. The reports in the links supplied by Joe H. clearly show that the Afghani citizens, Taliban or otherwise, hold a diametrically opposite position on the presence of Canadian troops in their land, from that of the Harper minority Canadian government. From the Afghani's point-of-view, it can be argued that he/she has just as much right to defend him/her-self and his/her traditions against foreign military force, as does a foreign military force believes it has the right to impose a foreign way-of-living upon a local people.
Why do we never seem to learn from history? The Russians went into Afghanistan and fought unsuccessfully for 20 years, the same locals as the Canadian and other UN forces are fighting today. The Russians withdrew. So will Canadian and all other UN forces have to do. If the Russians who are physically not so far away, and who acclimatized themselves to the harshness of fighting on the Afghan terrain could not wipe out the Taliban forever, what makes Mr. Bush and Mr. Harper believe that Canadian and American, and other UN forces can?
Politicians like PM Harper and his neo-cons have seized upon the afore-cited assumption to ideologically justify keeping and sending more Canadian forces into Afghanistan to fight and kill Afghanis -- not to keep or maintain peace, as they do for example, in Cyprus. Harper is using the afore-cited assumption, not because he strongly believes in the democratic rights and freedoms of the ordinary populace in Afghanistan -- indeed he couldn't care less -- but to try, under the guise of "no greater love ....that a man lay down his life for ... friend" to gain a majority of seats in the next federal election. Harper is quite aware that once he orders Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan to fight and kill the locals, we Canadians WILL NOT turn our backs on emotionally supporting Canadian soldiers. We are, therefore, forced into supporting a situation which we, Canadians, Americans, UN forces know, we cannot win. In the meantime, PM Harper, FAM. MacKay and their minority government are STEALING (by funding the military programme in Afghanistan) from Canadians who are cold and are not clothed, who are hungry and are not fed.
What, therefore, one may ask, to do? Retreat gracefully, and use diplomacy, not guns, to encourage the local Afghanis to adapt, in their own time, to a more humane way of life. The REALITY IS THAT we may physically KILL the Taliban, but we will NOT kill the spirit of the Taliban -- their traditions and way of life. The Russians didn't. Only the Taliban can and will change their way of living!!!
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. "
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
(Past) President of the United States
[Source: Human rights web]
Glenn Harewood. .
Subject: Re: Do you really feel more secure and prosperous?
North American Union / Security & Prosperity Partnership
The Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America indicates a very strong direction towards eventually creating a North America Union of Canada, Mexico & the United States. http://canada.usembassy.gov/content/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf
It does however have its moments of clarity when Thomas S. Axworthy, a member of the Task Force and Chairman of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada states "I am not persuaded that the benefits of a common security perimeter are worth the risks in harmonizing visa and asylum regulations." This is a very powerful statement that indicates the need for further review of the other contents as well.
This statement on page 45 of the report only highlights the requirement for an OPEN debate within our Federal Government. Our Canadian lifestyle will change if the report is adapted in the current format.
(It already has and is continuing to . . .)
Subject: spreading the words
Just a note, You still have after your editorials the discussing group?
Don't know if you heard there are two other
Subject: Re Daily Digest Query
A question to you:
Since September 12, 2001 what concrete verified actions have been taken by terrorists in North America
It has nothing to do with logic or reason. It's just that Bush and his Neo-cons are good students of Hermann Goering, who said with remarkable candor,
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Goering, interview during the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946
Sadly, both Martin and Harper have chosen to go along with Bush's trashing of 800 years of progress with respect to civil liberties. And in the US, the Democrats wring their hands, but are afraid of being denounced by Goering's disciples...
John Felsted writes:
So far environmentalists avoid talking about costs. Predicting the end of the world is not an excuse for spending us into poverty.
We'll get quite a bit of revenue by ending subsidies to big petroleum, including the oil sands - quite possibly enough to fund whatever it takes. But why this great concern about the cost of addressing a threat that has already cost many billions , including the destruction of New Orleans, and which, if not addressed will surely inundate many coastal areas around the world causing trillions in property loss and damage and killing many while creating millions of refugees.
We never seem to ask the cost of waging wars to kill people, no matter how flimsy the excuse for doing so, yet seem to find it very difficult to muster the political will to address a sure and potent danger, which is already, in its early stages, wreaking havoc.
Moreover, it is far from clear that addressing climate change will be a net expense. New technologies offer tremendous business opportunities, if we get busy on them, rather than subsidizing the dinosaurs who are major contributors to the problem.
A lady friend of mine from Vancouver sent me an article yesterday. The article described what two female researchers "discovered": that women live longer than men because they have a built-in "reach for your friends" reaction to threats, as opposed to men's stressful "fight or flight" reaction. I decided to look into this, which led me to the following.
Joe, fellow DDers, what do you think?
Mathematical proof - Why women live longer than men"Fight or flight" for men? How about "fight, flight, or blissful nonchalance" instead? In cases of extreme danger (the boss is prowling, tigers in the grass, ...), we're fight-or-flight because we're the ones who wind up spearing the threat or getting speared/eaten. (Mind you, these days the greatest threats tend to be other men, whether bosses or Masai on the warpath). But in cases where nothing's really at threat, which means 99.9% of the time, we stay calm, cool, and collected ... nonchalant gogo.
Women aren't fight-or-flight types ... they're panic-whine-and-complain instead. In the face of a real threat, they panic and wail, watch the men spear or get speared/eaten, and then either live on avec husband (if he speared the threat), avec new husband (if he got speared by a marauding band of Masai raiding for women), or sans husband (if he slaked the tiger's appetite). So in 0.01% of the cases, women outlive men 2/3 of the time.
As for the remaining 99.9% when a threat isn't really one ... women drive men to the grave by whining about things that either aren't true or don't matter ("You don't respect me!", "That hairdo cost me $60", "My boss doesn't like me!", ...). When they don't get compassion (simulated or otherwise .. men catch on to women's ... uuuhhh .. "sensitivities" (or nonsense-itivities)), they switch to complain mode ("You're SO insenstive!", "Oh, you MEN!", ...), which enables them to pass on their non-threat anxieties and make it the man's fault. The poor man can't stay nonchalant, so he goes into either fight mode ("Shaddap, you!") or flight mode (drink himself silly at the local bar but return home at the end of the day).
So let's do the math:
0.01% real threats - almost always survive since men are the ones who get speared or eaten; so 0.01% x 100% survival = 0.01% survival;
99.9% false threats - pass their anxieties on to men, thus relieving themselves of stress and living to complain another day; so 99.9% x 100% survival = 99.9% survival;
TOTAL: 0.01% + 99.9% = 100% survival rate, which amounts to them living through threats both real and imagined.
MEN with wives or girlfriends
0.01% real threats - speared, eaten, or survive; so we die 2/3 of the time, which means 0.01% x 1/3 survival = 0.0033% survival;
99.9% false threats - nonchalance, so no effect on lifespan; BUT ... if the men in question are either married or have girlfriends, their wives and girlfriends pass on their anxieties to them, which doesn't kill the men right away but does make their life hell and ruin their health; thus: 99.9% x 100% survival (nonchalance) x 100% survival (women's complaining) = 99.9% survival (even if women's complaining makes men feel like they're dying over and over);
TOTAL: 99.933%, slightly lower than women's survival rate; the difference arising from getting speared or eaten.
BUT ... men's health and self-respect, under attack during 99.9% of their lives, get undermined and whither away so that men die younger; so 99.9% x 80-year lifespan x 0.05 years life lost to woman-induced masculine despair for every percent = approximately four years lifespan lost by men.
Thus, we've proved that women make men die in two manners which don't affect women themselves: men getting speared/eaten (the minor contributor) to protect the tribe/women and whining-complaining (the major contributor). And it's all based on real math!
P.S. And women WONDER why men come up with jokes like: "Q: Why do married men die young? A: Because they WANT to."
P.P.S. Given the three-hour time difference between Montreal and Vancouver, I expect to have only a few hours to live. If you don't hear from me any more, you'll know what will have happened ...
P.P.P.S. BY all means, feel free to post this on the DD ...
Monday, January 15, 2007
Daily Digest January 15, 2007
Joe Hueglin wrote: