Monday, January 29, 2007

Daily Digest January 29, 2007

Joe Hueglin wrote:


CHARLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN - Keeping an eye on endangered shorelines print this article
Fishermen and property owners are rightly concerned about erosion

HALIFAX NEWS - Environmental awakening

HALIFAX HERALD - Star wars redux
NEGOTIATING tactic or warning shot?

MONTREAL GAZETTE - Harsh lesson in limits of health-care resources

MONTREAL GAZETTE - Contracts need to be transparent

OTTAWA CITIZEN - Beating up on big, bad banks


TORONTO STAR - Income guarantee deserves new look

TORONTO SUN - Heads up for more silly rules

HAMILTON SPECTATOR - The ever-widening pay gap
Are chief executive officers worth that much more than the rest of us?

LONDON FREE PRESS - New tone in relations reassuring

SUDBURY STAR - Sex-trade workers treated like second-class citizens =

WINNIPEG SUN - Minority performance

SASKATOON STARPHOENIX - Europe needs to carry share in Afghanistan

EDMONTON SUN - What's a life?

VANCOUVER SUN - It's up to institutions to protect consumer data
Identity theft is a growing concern in Canada

VANCOUVER PROVINCE - The best science avoids jumping to conclusions


First Nations want more cigarettes, cancer society wants fewer

Document outlines Canada's military plans in Afghanistan

Canadian troops conduct anti-corruption patrol targeting illegal checkpoints

Canadian wells help thirsty Afghans come home
Farmers slowly return to Taliban stronghold

Military passes on touching photo op

System sought to get Canadian soldiers out of tank heat

Support troops, but not Afghan mission, say N.B. dissenters

Lockheed's expected Forces bid would let Harper off the hook

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Afghan war takes a toll on Canada,1,6205516.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true

Borderline symbolism

Biometrics eyed for border
U.S. anti-terror officials to meet with ICBC this week

Is Ottawa's business agenda derailed?

Bush's mercenaries thrive in Iraq
President relies on thousands of private soldiers with little oversight, a troubling example of outsourcing of U.S. military

Sunni-Shiite clashes have Middle East ready to tumble
If Lebanon falls to Shiites, it could set off domino effect

Court order keeps Canadian TB patient in hospital

Group urges mandatory flu shots for health workers

Quebec's 'hybrid' medicare
Clinics to get public money and charge fees

'Mr. Big' police technique doesn't violate suspect's rights, Ont. court rules

The Americanization of Ontario elections

Remember your duty, Ontario told
Equalization: Ontario gains from stability: Quebec Cabinet minister

Sustainability of energy production key to our future
We must invest money from non-renewable sources in a variety of areas

Quebec plans reduce odds of early Canada election

In short - the role of Quebec on the international scene

Quebec says no to Harper’s senate plan

Precarious stalemate in the House
Environment, budget will be tests for minority Tories

Results the new mantra for MPs
Parties list their priorities but early election isn't one

The new issues: climate change and Afghanistan

Environment, budget, Afghanistan, Senate reform and fiscal imbalance to top House agenda

Tories and Liberals trade barbs over environment

Canadian government pressured over environment

Liberals, Bloc vote to extend study of climate bill

Dion set to unleash Liberal pit bulls in House

Committee calls Dion to testify about oil sands meeting

RELATED ARTICLE - Secret Canada - U.S. oil plan concerns opposition leaders

Accentuating the negative

Tory attack ads raise questions about possible copyright breach

Tories launch ad attack; Liberal chief Dion predicts it will fail

Dion adviser says Tory 'smear' will not stick
Kennedy defends leader's focus on 'fairness, justice'

Tories turn first question period of 2007 into extension of TV attack ads

Green party leader condemns $400m plan to clean up Sydney tar ponds

Cleanup or coverup? Resident asks of tar ponds plan

Layton wants action on Clean Air Act before budget

MP sees all talk, no action on growing 'plague' of grow operations

Applicants vying for say in trust tax input

Family values battle takes another form
Income splitting picks up where child care left off

Flaherty, Emerson praised for China visit
The two ministers 'said all the right things,' Earl Drake says

Opposition keen to debate Afghanistan, military purchases
The Conservatives? Not so ...

Finley hires PM's best friend to help out on immigration files
John Weissenberger is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's altar ego in a political and a personal sense, says biographer William Johnson.

Flaherty, McGuinty spar over 'energy and environment'
Jim Flaherty says David McGuinty's a 'cynical person.' But McGuinty questions if Tories raised climate change with Washington.

Ottawa and N.S. announce $400-million plan to bury the Sydney tar ponds

Tories still eye lifetime gun licensing

With Canada warming at more than twice the global rate, experts say we better act fast

Are scientists evolving into climate crusaders?
Warnings of warming dangers have become increasingly dramatic

Spies feared Hezbollah clashes here

Climate change worse than forecast, scientists say

Global warming not biggest threat: expert
A Concordia research study shows the biggest threat is habitat loss at 84 per cent

Cosy little family
Censor seeks scary new precedent for election ads

The art of governing
Harper needs to get off his white horse and become a politician


Une stratégie déplorée

L'environnement alimente le duel entre conservateurs et libéraux

# Un ancien espion américain veut publiciser l'affaire Arar aux Etats-Unis

# Les pubs des conservateurs soulèvent des questions sur les droits d'auteur

# Les troupes canadiennes doivent lutter contre la corruption en Afghanistan

Forcer Boeing à investir plus au Québec serait du «patronage»

Les libéraux piqués au vif

Le ministre Flaherty critique Stéphane Dion

Layton prêt à appuyer le budget Harper

Le rôle du Québec sur la scène internationale


"Les pubs des conservateurs"

        The only programme I watch on television is "Crossing Jordan" - so I never saw "Les pubs des conservateurs " until they were looked up to provide the link
         immediately below.

        Rosie sent me a post with her thoughts - I sent her those of Susan Riley asking her a question to which she responded.

        I ask the same question of you.

Click here to watch our ads #

Rosalie Piccioni

Hi Joe,
    We won't hear the end of the Conservative ad, so I might as well bring up the subject  :o)  It's odd how every time the Conservatives do what the Opposition is doing that they get targeted, but the Opposition gets away with further comment on that.  
    The way I see it, the Conservatives don't need to resort to maligning the Opposition because they already have a tremendous track record.
    My suggestion is that they shelve the ad campaign, at least for the time being - until the Opposition comes out with theirs, then bring the ad out again with an added banner saying "Remember when?"
    Just a thought.
. . . how does this fit into your thoughts?

Accentuating the negative

... I wouldn't say hysterionics (well, maybe a little :o) or panic, but purely a political ploy.   The thing is, I don't see the Conservatives needing to resort to those tactics;  in retrospect, the now Prime Minister Harper has always given me the impression of knowing what was needed and how to give it.  I wouldn't give Mr. Dion the credit in putting a limelight on him.
    Where the environment was concerned, there were more pressing subjects/situations demanding Mr. Harper's attention prior to elections, and, without digging up old news,  history would confirm that.
    I've never been one for smear campaigns, feeling that actions are what counts.  Canada is a better country for the present Government and I wouldn't change it.  As I said, put away the ads and bring them out if the Opposition brings on a smear campaign.  The "Remember when?" would be enough to make the point.

        (There are other questions raised at the end of the post arising out of quotes on which you may have an opinion to share)

Harper should develop broader perspective on subjects he's addressing

Allan Heisey
ede is terrific! cz

cz Shall I pass your high praise on to him? j

j, publish it! cz

Ron Thornton

*Hi Joe:

I was not planning to do much put more than quickly pan the Jan. 28 DD until I read your comment that McGunity clearly rejects "Ontario's historic role as the honest broker of Confederation."  When in hell did they become that?  Ontario is Canada's honest broker?  Isn't that like saying the United States is the honest broker of North America.  In just what history book is this concept explained?  As a native Albertan, I have been rather used to looking at Ontario as where many of our problems are spawned.  Honest broker?  My sides are aching, Joe.  That was a good one.

Thanks for the chuckle.


. . . it all began with the CPR..

It's a part of Albertan heritage.

It's something migrants from Ontario
pick up to fit in . . . and some become
like Baptists who turn Roman
Catholic, going to Mass every day

Or Romans to Baptist having the
Good Book always in hand.


Jacob Rempel

Subject: Video: George Galloway's speech to the UK Parliament on Iraq:

Video: George Galloway's speech to the UK Parliament on Iraq:

A powerful speech highlighting the appalling situation in Iraq, and the pathetic handling of it by the British government: Ill-equipped troops, brutal treatment of civilians, and support for death squads: Welcome to democracy, Bush & Blair style!

Chris Schnurr

Re: Church and Charities

Absolutely - Churches must remain separate from
political interference.  However, that said, any
charitable organization that receives public funds are
open to public input and direction.

Not sure in the case of the Churches Catholic Child
Services in the UK, but if they are in receipt of
public funds for operations they are accountable to
the public at large.

If Churches wish to remain autonomous from public
inspection, inquiry and direction, then no Church or
its charities should be in receipt of public funds.

 James Carson, Vancouver
Dear Joe,
      Please pass this along to Don Keir (and below 30 if you deem appropriate). If he is refering to The Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America, then we need to first agree on definitions of terms. The NAFTA is an 'agreement' [defined in the Canadian Oxford dictionary as -'holding the same opinion'  'consent' 'harmony'
(betcha' thought I was going to use Websters ;/))
Partnership is -'the state of sharing in, with others, an actvity or in the case of country-'a country that has an agreement with others'
Union -'the state of being united, joined together for a common purpose/ joined politically'.
    A partnership in the context of international agreements, can not be construed as a union. A union is clearly reserved for parnerships which involve political union. The Staes is a union; says so in the title. Canada is a union of provinces, each of whom retain their rights. NAFTA is not an agreement to unite politically, neither is SSPPNA. They are agreements to co-operate in areas of mutual interest and concern (trade, security, movement of people and ideas.) and to misconstue them as 'proof' of a secret attempt to politically unite Canada, USA, and Mexico into a common political entity with a single political will and agenda, is a logic leap of breath taking magnitude.
   Now I 'Googled' North American Union Agreements', and all I got was a list of 101 thousand web blogs written by conspiracy theorists quoting other conspiracy theorists and all pointing back to the NAFTA, and the more recent SSPPNA, and the fact that three guys met in Waco Texas and some more people met in Cancun, and a bunch of people met in Banff as rock solid proof that there is a consiracy by the Elite of North America to create a Supranational Continental Government that will render the opinion and vote of Joe Citizen meaningless in their respective countries.  Motivation for this Elitist Anti-democratic Plot appears to be that Canada has lots of Water and Oil (well actually Canada doesn't have much oil at all, but Alberta has a huge amount locked into tar sands in their northern woods) and one assumes that those greedy Americans, just like in some silent era Saturday morning Serial starring Randolph Scott as The Hero, The Dastardly Villian is intent on tying The Virtuous Maiden (here-in played by Canada) to the proverbial train tracks and forcing her, by any nefarious means to sign over the deeds to the riches [fade to black; tune in next week...,].
    Now, until some one provides some tangible proof  [facts, evidence], then the arguments presented thus far remain thories, and since they are about an alleged conspiracy, they are, by definition, a 'conspiracy theory'.
      I do not mean to make light of the concern expressed in these conspiracy theory arguments. The growth of new levels of Government that further  belabour our wallets and liberties, but which are not directly accountable to us voters/ citizens, are to be resisted, and those that are necassary can always be structured to be accountable directly to the citizens. In The Lower mainland we have the GVRD which is above city councils, and extraneous to provincial. So far the GVRD seems most adept at finding new ways to tax the citizens without accountablity, such as a 10cent/liter tax on gas, and attempting to install a 'parking space tax' (yes, you read that right; taxing businesses for the number of parking stalls they have. That council is formed by having each municipality select two members from its number to represent it. It generally ends up being the mayors and their favorite henchman or lapdog. We could have had a ballot that asks us to select our two representatives at the same time we selected our city council. Maybe I like Sam as mayor, but want some other city councillor to represent me at the GVRD level.
     So you can see I have concerns about too much government, like any good conservative, but really, this NAU conspiracy theory has a very long way to go to hold any water (or oil) ;/) carpe diem, James Carson, Vancouver

(This post was first sent on the 26th but got "lost in the ether" until to-day)
Andy Rutherford

Subject: Fogal's reply to Vancouver Sun column, "Conspiracy theorists given a free run at continental pact"

Thought that you  might be interested .
(It's under discussion)
Letter to the Editor, January 24, 2007 via e mail and fax.
Re: Barbara Yaffe, Tuesday January 23, 2007, "Conspiracy Theorists Given a Free Reign at Continental Pact."

Dear Editor:
I  write as the Leader of the Canadian Action Party which was dismissed in the above article along with the Council of Canadians as being a Conspiracy Theorist.
Signed agreements such as NAFTA and the S.P.P. (Security and Prosperity Agreement),  the Canada -U.S. Smart Border Declaration, the Competitiveness Council and the Binational Military Planning Group  are real policies and agreements,  not conspiracies.
The SPP was signed by Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox in March 2005. It was reaffirmed in April of 2006 by Prime Minister Harper. The S.P.P sanctioned the recommendations of the North American Task force released in May of 2005.
John Manley, a former Liberal  Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, now heads the Canada, USA, Mexico Task Force  which released its recommendations for a North American continent wide union on May 17/18, 2005. Manley was quoted  in All Patriot News in the USA, May 17, 2005.  He said, "We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo."
The North American Task Force is comprised of prominent former officials, businessmen, and academics from the three countries; in particular, they are from the U.S.'s Council on Foreign  Relations, Canada's Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and Mexico's Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. These are real people with real names, such as Thomas Axworthy, Merrill Lynch and Co., Inc.,Thomas P. d'Aquino, Professor Wendy K. Dobson, Dr. Robert Pastor (described as the Father of the North American Union by The Free, Allan Gotleib, Pierre Marc Johnson, Heenan Blaikie, McCarthy Tetrault, Donner Canada Foundation (to name a few).
The Canada- U.S. Smart Border Declaration was signed December 12, 2001 by Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Tom Ridge, USA Homeland Security Director. This declaration is a 30 point action plan from which flows the new passport rules, the current voluntary (soon to be mandatory)  retinal, fingerprint, and RFID requirements for fast cross border movement, the no fly lists, i.e., listing  of people who are not allowed to board any airplane within or out of Canada, USA. or Mexico, the arming of Canadian border guards.
 From the S.P.P. flows a 30 member Competitiveness Council comprised of  North America's  most influential CEO's. Prime Minister Harper  sanctioned  the 10 person Canadian group whose job is to "advise" him. These unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative live real people are part of the  structure that supercedes our governments and is already driving the economic and social policies of  three countries beyond the reach of our Members of Parliament.
Barbara Yaffe is completely out of touch with the reality when she says, "The checks and balances are in the parliamentary system." It is not our Parliamentary system that is in play here. This is a shadow government of live people  who are usurping our Parliament without any check or balance. They are  reshaping Canada, Mexico, and the USA under US dominance into  a North American entity that is to be governed by unelected panels and tribunals with no accountability to the people. They intend to operate completely outside the reach of  national  legal systems and national constitutions.. There is to be no democratic process and no sovereignty.
The restructuring  is being  implemented by current cabinet members and the government bureaucracy, not our parliament! Most Members of Parliament  either have no clue about the SPP, or if they do, they silently submit their constituents to  this  modern form of feudalism.
The harm, the "treason", is that individuals who are and were in Cabinet along with our Prime Ministers, military leaders, academics,  leading Corporate representatives, Ambassadors and Consuls General  are working in secret  creating a North American Fortress and Conquering Empire that will  harvest and exploit our national resources, our strategic geography, and our labour/military force  profitably for themselves. These are real, live, identifiable humans who meet behind closed doors  to decide how the
citizens of three proud sovereign countries  will be stripped of their constitutional rights and liberties,  and made to serve this elite force.
 There is a real basis for our claim. It is the leaked document dated August 31, 2006 titled North American Forum Confirmed Participants which was marked "Internal document, Not for Public Release". It  listed the participants in that secret meeting conducted in Banff Alberta. Participants from Canada included   Hon. Stockwell  Day, Minister of Public Safety, Government of Canada; Col. Peter Atkinson, Special advisor to Chief of Defence Staff; Hon Perrin Beatty, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Thomas d'Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief Executives;  Dr. Wendy Dobson, Institute for International Business; Hon Gordon O'Connor, Minister of
Defence, Government of Canada; Hon. Anne McLellan, Senior Counsel, Bennet Jones; General Rick Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff; Mr. Fred Green, Canadian Pacific Railway; Hon John Manley, McCarthy Tetrault LLP; Hon Greg Melchin, Minister of Energy, Government of Alberta; Richard L George, Suncor Energy Inc.; Hon Peter Lougheed  (to name a few).
USA participants included Ms Deborah Bolton, Political Advisor to Commander, US Northcom; admiral Tim Keating, Commander US Northern Command; Dr Robert A Pastor, Director , Centre for North American Studies, American University, Washington DC; Donald R Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, US Department of Defence; Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military Assist. To Sec Rumsfeld, Dr. James Schlesinger, Former Sec of Energy and Defence; Sec Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary of Energy, US Deputy of Energy.
Topics included: A Vision for North America, Toward a North American Energy Strategy, Demographic and Social Dimension of North American Integration, Border Infrastructure and Continental Prosperity, Military to Military Cooperation.
Our elected Members of Parliament apparently are willing to be assigned to the role of lackeys enjoying their pensions, chasing their tails debating  whether Quebec is a sovereign nation in an un-sovereign non-nation, sacrificing  the people to an ever lowering standard of living, and relegating nationhood and government to  irrelevancy.
Submission to such a scheme  is unconstitutional, and  undemocratic. It is a betrayal of our history, our citizenship,  our tradition, our values,  and our way of life. It is not what real Canadians  call a "worthy project" .
  Yours truly,
Connie Fogal , Leader Canadian Action Party


But McGuinty clearly rejects Ontario's historic role as the honest broker of Confederation. He declines the mantle of John Robarts, Bill Davis, David Peterson and Bob Rae. =
Nothing new under the Sun. The sea change occurred during Mike Harris' PM-ery. That was 10 years ago ...

Not in perception through constant media that we're down 23 milliards.

Hi Joe,
Hahahahahaha. Are you going Quebecois on us? Or is it European? Milliards ....
I tell ya, I can tell Europeans 'til I'm blue in the face that the North American convention makes more sense than theirs:
- million = base unit;
- billion = "second level" base unit (which makes sense given that "bi" corresponds to two);
- trillion ....
- zillion ...
- googleplex (one followed by a hundred zeros; for fun, ask people where the name for the Google search engine comes from and just watch their faces paralyze and their eyes go blank).
A l'europeenne:
- million;
- milliard (which made sense when the French coined the term .. I mean who ever have to count trillions of (say) dollars up 'til recently);
- billion for the "third level" base unit, which makes no sense since "bi" corresponds to two; of course, this could mean that "milliard" is the "level one" base unit but in that case they should call their billions billiards ... but that name's already taken.
Conclusion: who cares what the French say! Do the world a favour and tell them to go stuff themselves and sse the North American convention despite the looming threat of cultural hegemony.
The above doesn't apply to Quebecois, of course: we're sensible in the sense of using million, milliards, trillions ,etc. My Algerian wife may think we're nincompoops but 'tis the price of intellectual rectitude ...

John Dowson

The On-Line People Parliament sounds like some idea from the old BBC TV program "Yes Prime Minister" Sir Humphrey would be horrified, look how many civil servants this would put out of work. Ordinary people don't know anything, ever four years or so some new politicians sit on the government benches, but the people who run the country are the civil servants, and they wouldn't stand for ordinary people running things. They have enough trouble trying to keep the politicians in their place.
John Dowson
An important point's been made here: the people who run the country are the civil servants, NOT the politicians. This is something that's become confused over time as people have lumped politicians and civil servants together as "the government". In reality, civil servants make up "the government". Politicians are legislators who give the government direction, mandate activities, and oversee its operation and efficiency. To paraphrase some British politician (Winston Churchill?), the job of the politician is to tell the civil service what the people will no longer tolerate. Thus, elected politicians serve to counsel their party's leadership group and the leadership group either acts as a Board of Directors (when it's part of the party-in-power, at which time it forms the Cabinet) or as the organizers of a Loyal Opposition.
As for not standing that ordinary people run things: politicians perform this function in that they're the ones who represent "the people's will" towards the civil-servant government. Politicians can't do everything they want in just any manner these days, but ultimately they're the ones who prod and direct the government towards what they understand is the nation's health, wealth and benefit. So no, the people DON'T run things or deal directly with the government in modern societies; they deal with politicians who act on their behalf and who temper and modulate their demands.
Societies where social forces (groups to which people feel loyalty, e.g. landowners, peasants, soldiers, tribes, clans) deal directly with the government or with other are traditional societies, which are often stable at the political level. These societies are necessarily simple ones in which there's comparatively little variation in lifestyles. For example, a peasant society made up mostly of farmers, with village leaders taking care of local and inter-village political affairs is a simple, traditional society.
Societies begin to modernize when they start to become more complex. When towns and cities start popping up, along with work specialization (i.e. artisans, tradesmen, and merchants start to appear), some people stop identifying themselves as being part of a traditional social group and start to define themselves as part of other groups (or "social forces") such as trade guilds, citizens of a country, etc. As a society grows more complex, non-traditional social forces contest political power with traditional forces (e.g. village chiefs, kings, feudal lords) and with each other. This is the time when political violence and disorder is at its height. A given society can take various forms and can progress or regress politically with time, but things calm down as that society approaches full modernization. And a society can be considered fuly modernized when strong, suitable, and legitimate political institutions become established and autonomous (that is, autonomous in the sense that they're not subject to capture by particular social forces, like the military or the rich, for example).
All that to say: in modern societies, "ordinary people" don't run things ... and praise Heaven that they don't! Otherwise, other ordinary people who don't agree with the ones running things can bring about change only through winner-take-all political showdowns, with attendant instability, unpredictability, and violence.
Sure "the government" isn't powerless when it comes to keeping politicians in their place. But it always shows restraint when presented with situations that it doesn't like because neutralizing politicians amounts to undermining government legitimacy and durability.
Rosalie Piccioni

Joe:        Re:  CALGARY HERALD - Stay out of church's beliefs
May it never be that the power is given to the human arrogance that thinks it can outdo God in denying children that blessing!  Thank you Calgary Herald for bringing this situation to the attention of the public.

(Religious principles of all religions are the primary basis of ethical behaviour)

(BY WAY OF EXPLANATION: In the text below, I explain my views as concerns organized religion in the general sense, with emphasis on Judeo-Christo-Islamic revealed religions. I mean no offense to believers. For that matter, I SUPPORT the teaching of religion and its public display in unobnoxious manners. However, I insist that counter-religious skepticism also have a place in the public space. Suppressing religion by banning it from public space amounts to establishing "un-religion" as a state creed that itself is a religion. But that doesn't mean that religion in its manifold forms can't and shouldn't be displayed or brought into question in public).
I don't particularly agree with religious principles being the primary basis, which I'll explain below. My apologies for basing my argument on Judeo-Christo-Muslim thought and philosophy, but it's the one I know best.
It's pretty obvious that one of the main things used to justify ethics has been religious principle. But religious principle rarely pops out of nowhere ... when it's formed, it often arises following the observation of certain phenomena, or as a consequence of social change or disruption. Also, it sometimes arises when certain inspired individuals synthesize the social and physical environment and the people's state of mind into something useful and credible. Lastly, it also arises when certain authoritative groups begin to define it in manners agrreable to themselves.
When it comes to Christianity, reading the history of the early and medieval Church is enough to convince many people that a lot of its principles are made-up things that often came about in ... ahem ... controversial manners. Many heresies popped up as Christianity evolved, with said heresies being declared false in often-underhanded means (well, by our standards, anyway). Take the case of the Monophysite heresy ... some time ago (I don't remember when), the learned men of the Church squabbled about the nature of Christ: did he have a dual nature (that is, was he "made up of two things linked together"), one human and one divine, or did he have a single one (the Monophysite "single physicality" stance; was he divine and human in an undivided manner). Christianity's two parties resolved to decide the issue at a great gathering to which all the bishops (I believe) were convened. Thge bishops were all gathered at the place where the matter was decided. Came the day and time for the bishops to debate and vote, leaders from one of the parties (the non-Monophysite one, whose name I forget) called early "their" bishops to the place of meeting. When they'd been hathered, they closed the hall doors behind themselves, locked out the other party, voted, and declared the Monophysite position to be heretical. The Monophysites were then ordered to renounce their heresy, under pain of excommunication from the "legitimate" Church controlled by the anti-Monophysites. I understand that the decision taken that day still stands as Catholic principle.
Throw in some questionable practices (to this day, the Pope can STILL hand out "Advance to Heaven, Collect Eternal Bliss" indulgences, and this despite all that happened during the Reformation; also, Pope John Paul II canonized as many saints during his Papacy as had been canonized since the birth of the Church almost 2,000 years ago). Add in obsolete current practices (Catholic priests haven't been able to marry since around the 12th century because back then poor communications led to many of them bequeathing property to their children; these days, strong legal systems in many countries moot this issue, but now-old habits are hard to change). And lastly, consider obsolete principles that HAVE been junked along the way (Christianity held for a long time that lending money for interest for any reason was "usury", a morally reprehensible practice; this actually made sense way back when ... both Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas expounded on this; in their times, when industry did not exist as we know it, the dominant reasons for having to borrow money were that the borrower had had a spell of misfortune (in which case the lender should be charitable and either lend the money free or just give it to the borrower) or that he was prodigal and throwing his money away (in which case the lender would be taking advantage of a person addcited to vice)). When the concept of borrowing money to fund an enterprise arose (first in Italy), people came around to the idea that the borrower should share its benefits with the lenders who had made it possible by underwriting it. So, the Christian "principle" of lending money for interest turned out to be a contextual one that faded when it no longer made sense. Interestingly enough, the old Christian reasoning concerning usury is still upheld in the Muslim world: to this day, Muslim banks don't charge interest, they charge interest-like "service fees".
And there are have been many more such examples throughout Christian history. Judaic history has been no better in its own way (witness the bloodletting and atrocities chronicled in the Old Testament, followed by the Zealots' Common Era terrorism in the Roman empire, and the Sanhedrim's handing over of Jesus to the Roman magistracy in order to secure peace within the Jewish community), and neither has Islam.
All that to say that ALL organized religion should be taken with a grain of salt since none of it stands up to close scrutiny. However, as foundations of ethical systems, religions have served and do still serve as bases (among others) for ethical systems throughout the ages. Religious teaching and understanding does have a place in the public space ... but so does skepticism. Just as none prove that a given religion is strictly or just generally true, so none can claim that it is strictly and generally false.
Jacob Rempel

(Zoroaster's theology is still how Western religions view our worldly struggles)
Zoroastrian teachings

You'd think that the followers of Zarathustra would have seen the error of their ways when we Greeks (OK, our Macedonian cousins) cleaned their clock 2,300-odd years ago. But STILL they persist in their good-vs-evil ways. On the positive side, their thinking DOES make for good Exorcist-style stories.

( So as well do Jews Christians and Moslems persist. )
John Morand

Good Evening or Morning Joe:
 I have just unretired to take the position of VP and COO of Global Emissions Systems Inc. We in fact have a good part of the answer to emissions at a sustainable cost. One of our first /early adopters is a Petroleum company who is marketing it to its clients.
The recent poll spells good news for us.
Hhhmmmm ... I market an improved 100% clean (no fuel!) power-generation system, as well as an innovative pollution-reduction system. Small world or what? (John: I'll be looking at tomorrow).

Experts say most XDR cases in Canada are seen in foreign-born people who develop the disease in another country before traveling to Canada.

¿Ought those migrating to Canada be tested and if having infectious diseases be denied entry ?


"So I am asking the question: Can you change indirectly what you cannot do directly? That’s the main question and to that question Quebec is answering "no".

¿What future does this leave for the electing of senators to be appointed by the Prime Minister ?

The document — authored by Gen. Rick Hillier and obtained recently by CBC News —stated that the military's job in Afghanistan is considered successful and completed:

¿Is Canada committed at this point to the military's job in Afghanistan being successful and completed?

The government suddenly doubled the paylift capacity for the aircraft, to 39,000 kilograms - a capacity at which the C-17 has no rivals.

¿Any comment on the propriety of the governments single sourcing in this manner?