Sunday, May 10, 2009

Daily Digest May 10, 2009


The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/

EDITORIAL PAGEs

CAPE BRETON POST -
Sealskin uniforms empty pandering
http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?sid=249787&sc=151

TORONTO STAR -
`Tough' drug bill all about politics
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/631536

`Reverse Reaganism'
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/631531

 CPP a model for fixing private pensions 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/631569

 Political leaders do not personify their nations 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/631568

CALGARY HERALD -
Electronic strip search troubling
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=5d318b2f-e8b5-4cc1-a723-7602e263a8ae

VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST -
Cautious course on vote reform
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=e823bfba-14cc-44e8-af98-427191900578


ISSUES

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS -          
'Status Indians' face threat of extinction
http://www.thestar.com/article/631974


AF-PAK PROBLEM -
Petraeus: al-Qaida not operating in Afghanistan (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/10/petraeus-alqaida-not-oper_n_201310.html

Transcript: David Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday"
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/05/10/transcript-david-petraeus-on-fox-news-sunday/

Phosphorus claim after fatal air strikes in Afghanistan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/10/afghanistan-attacks-phosphorus-investigation

 US to review Afghan air strikes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8042642.stm
FOREIGN AFFAIRS -
U.S.:  Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Greatest Threat of All?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46787

Taliban's insurgency in Pakistan 'worrisome,' says Canada's top soldier
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090510.wcanadaswat0510/BNStory/Front


FEDERAL POLITICS -
Flurry of patronage postings at height of Tory strife
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090510/national/harper_patronage

Tory minister Kenney denies conspiring against Ruby Dhalla
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/632109

Tory minister says Dhalla allegations no 'conspiracy'
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/10/9415836-sun.html

Ignatieff supports changing Canada's two-ocean motto
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1582523

Harper ad campaign to boost budget decried
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/fp/Harper+campaign+boost+budget+decried/1581681/story.html


PROGRAMMES -
8-year Senate terms up for sober second thought
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/05/10/9409851-sun.html

Arctic centre wins infrastructure grant, loses operating funds
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1542843

Ottawa urging communities affected by hate crime to apply for funding
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090510/national/hate_crime_funding


PRESSURE POINTS -
Security my butt
New technology will make us all strippers
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2009/05/10/9409716-sun.html

A 'liberal' state of mind
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html


OPINION AND INFORMATION -
EU ban puts the kibosh on sealskin sporrans
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1121250.html

Thank you to all 'unenlightened' moms
http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/content/view/56913/56/


INFOS -
Des postes clés offerts à des partisans conservateurs
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200905/10/01-855168-des-postes-cles-offerts-a-des-partisans-conservateurs.php

Ignatieff était opposé à la coalition
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200905/10/01-855200-ignatieff-etait-oppose-a-la-coalition.php

Brian Mulroney témoignera mardi
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200905/10/01-855196-brian-mulroney-temoignera-mardi.php

Kenney rejette l'idée que Ruby Dhalla soit victime d'un complot
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200905/10/01-855174-kenney-rejette-lidee-que-ruby-dhalla-soit-victime-dun-complot.php

 Ottawa aide les collectivités vulnérables aux crimes motivés par la haine
http://info.branchez-vous.com/Nationales/090510/N051048AU.html

Un soldat canadien se plaint auprès du lieutenant-général Michel Gauthier
http://info.branchez-vous.com/Nationales/090510/N051074AU.html

BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)

INVESTMENT CANADA ACT

Changes have been made in The Investment Canada Act .  Not through them being introduced and debated but as a Section of the Budget.

My quote of one of these changes elicited respone from Al Heisey. At present a debate is on going as Hize and myself exchange quite differing views concerning foreign capital flows coming into Canada.

You arre invited to express thoughts you have views concerning what cz or Joe have posted.

The ball is in my court at the moment . . .

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
On 2009 May 9, at 1:29, Joe Hueglin wrote:

Except for takeovers under $1 000 000 000.00 to which no commitments will be demanded.

=====
At 08:47 AM 09/05/2009, cz wrote:

joe, are you beland honderich's ghost rising from the grave to urge "tough screening" of the dreaded foreigners who want to offer jobs, competition, skills and points of view within your timorous country?

you don't speak for me, joe, i am the ghost of stan randall, former minister of industry in ontario tory governments who was fond of saying the only thing wrong with foreigin investment is that we don't have enough of it.

your confidence in our public servants begging investors to please add at least one job so we can approve your application, is laudable for some, pitiful for me. i know one canadian in such a situation who promised to add a secretary to shut the tough screener up! cz

=====
On 2009 May10, at 24:32, Joe Hueglin wrote:
. . . short answer, "No".

        Joe

=====
At 06:45 AM 10/05/2009, cz wrote:
joe, this in itself is a pitiful copout. the dreaded foreigner has been investing in this country for centuries and you have been an elected public servant for a short period therein and you have to compose your thoughts to get past that nervous tick you express about those _as william davis once expressed it so admirably - "who live outside our country"! Come on Joe, give us a definitive answer about what you would require from foreigners by way of our state secretariats!!! For me I presume their innocence, counting on that wondrous principle to protect all who serve the country and canadians. cz

=====
On 2009 May10, at 13:35, Joe Hueglin wrote:
. . . longer response defining with more precision that of which we are considering

        j

For the Digest ______________________________________________
At least three types of foreign capital flows into Canada:

(1) capital investment that increases Canada's productive capacity;

(2) investment that maintains/continues production in Canada;

(3) purchases that reduce Canadian production.

Type (1), if this is what Randall meant, is welcome, "we don't get enough of foreign investment" in this form.  Investments that
increase production, provide job opportunities, pay taxes to all levels of government, in Niagara, Federal, Provincial, Regional, local.

Type (2) is welcome as well with commitments to continue operating the purchase as a Canadian based enterprise.

In so far as we are aware the purchase of the Steel Company of Canada by US Steel was contingent on conditions that have not been met. And  which, according to Terence Corcoran stated opinion "Ottawa has no power to enforce previous foreign investment commitments " http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1575725

Type (3) serve no useful purpose for Canada or Canadians, as a country and a people. Those selling benefit, no one else.

__________________________________________________

Before continuing it is best to establish whether you (and others) accept Types (1), (2) and (3) as descriptors differentiating the effects that can flow from the varying natures of foreign capital flowing into Canada.

        Joe

=====
At 05:25 PM 10/05/2009, you wrote:
j i don't accept your too neat delineation of types of foreign 
investment. i don't think the dreaded ones invest to shut down 
facilities here. however, i accept that having invested, shutting down 
surplus production may be necessary given market conditions. you see 
that as a plan, i see it as a sometimes necessity. please tell me how 
you can guarantee foreign investors will not do that, except by 
keeping them all out, cz

=====

«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

From: The Natroses
Subject: Re: Daily Digest May 9, 2009

To
"Efstratios Psarianos"

Just thought to correct you on British regulars and Canadian militia. The British regulars, were mostly composed of ordinary people of the day who were the farmers, and merchants and they were not really a part of the British Redcoats. As for Canadian militia, perhaps the British may have called the rag-tagged militia as Canadian, but in both cases the people were not fighting to be loyal to some cause of the British, but were fighting to defend their land and their way of life. When the war was over, they went back to their former lives contented that they had stopped the American spread of wanting more land. As for the British, they should thank their lucky stars that the people of the early 1800s, were what there were.  Without them, Canada would have been lost to America. That said, the British government should also donate large quantities of money towards the celebrations regarding the anniversary of the War of 1812, as should the Canadian government. In so doing, it will tell the world and in particular the Americans that we have one quality that is still with us, "Don't ever underestimate a Canadian's ability or skills when out-sourced in numbers and power."

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM, The Natroses wrote:
Hi again;  Commenting on: Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corporate Power
http://tinyurl.com/r9otgn

 
Populism happened here in Canada, and in other Western countries. The writer is right, when history teachers and politicians are quick, and too quick not to spend any time on populism that developed from  economic systems that was unfair to the majority. Favouring the elite, and placing burdens unto the majority of working folk.
Where now, the co-ops that were formed for the wheat farmers, the fruit farmers and the fishery are no more. In its replace, are the big factory farms or fishing enterprises that plays hard ball with the smaller independent farmers, fishermen by controlling prices of raw material. Money certainly talks, and the more money someone has, the more power and influence can be wield on economic policies and the politicians who makes the laws.
As the article indicates, it is time to take back our power and put back fairness into the economic system. "The very essence of populism is its unrelenting focus on breaking the iron grip that big corporations have on our country--including on our economy, government, media, and environment. It is unabashedly a class movement. Try to squeeze Lord Limbaugh into that philosophical suit of clothes! He's just another right-wing, corporate-hugging, silk-tie elitist--an apologist for plutocracy, not a populist.
Fully embracing the egalitarian ideals and rebellious spirit of the American Revolution, populists have always been out to challenge the orthodoxy of the corporate order and to empower workaday Americans so they can control their own economic and political destinies. This approach distinguishes the movement from classic liberalism, which seeks to live in harmony with concentrated corporate power by trying to regulate its excesses."

We have not come far from the 1880s. Our economic systems are more or less the same, where once we had business merchants, and now we have corporate boards. Both are regulated, but everyday working folk have lost their control on their own economic and political destinies. Canadian politicians would rather have us normal people to forget our past, To forget that we had our victories, and in the victories forged a better way for all. The biggest populist movement, was a universal health system. As with the co-ops, the health system is universal in name only. Our unions are being chipped away by the rules and regulations being imposed on them by governments. The only thing that is left for us to do, is to pick up our 'pitched forks', and take back our destinies by reading and understanding the difference between the political ideology of populist dogma and the mainstream political parties. Populist movements are what the corporations fear the most, as did the fish merchants of the past. For political parties of today, and the politicians - it is much easier to tend to the needs of the few who happen to hold the purse strings and the power; than it is to tend to the majority of the people. As what was happening back in the 1880s and 1890s, is happening in the same way today,  where big business needs are tended to and the majority of people are being regulated to conform by restricting our rights and freedoms.
As the article, most of our greatest accomplishments on Earth have come from populist movements.
" Yes, the Populists called for the "free and unlimited coinage of silver" to provide both debt relief and economic stimulus for small enterprise, but the snickering cynics who try to marginalize populism by defining it in terms of this narrow (though important) issue ignore the party's broader and amazingly progressive agenda, including these provisions:
The first party to call for women's suffrage.
An eight-hour day for labor, plus wage protections.
The abolition of the standing army of mercenaries, known as the "Pinkerton system," which violently suppressed union organizers.
The direct election by the people of U.S. senators (who were chosen by state legislatures at the time).
A graduated income tax.
Legislation by popular initiative and referendum.
Public ownership of railroads, telephones, and telegraphs.
No subsidy of private corporations for any purpose.
Prohibition of speculation on and foreign ownership of our public lands and natural resources.
A free ballot and fair count in all elections.
Civil-service laws to prevent the politicalization of government employees.
Pensions for veterans.
Measures to break the corrupting power of corporate lobbyists."
If one thinks about Canada in this way, we should be asking politicians what they have done that improves our standard of living in terms of fairness and accountability. As for history accounts, the politicians of the day for all accounts were and still are slow to move on introducing measures that will bring in fairness and equitable access, but were quick and still is to introduce measures that has thumb screws attached to them, to be applied for citizens that are not the elite in society.

I believe we need to reawaken the populist ideology, not through politicians but through the citizens of a country. One does not have to riot on the streets to see changes being made. One just have to say no and keep on saying no to their governments and politicians, when they are choosing to protect the elite over the rest of their citizens. We can start, by reminding the politicians of any stripe, that employment insurance benefits do not allow anyone working for a living, the luxury of benefits paying all the bills. We can remind them, that politicians and civil servants have benefits and wages that are as rich as the payouts that are given to CEOs and top management. If they loose their job, life style does not change, in terms of being evicted or loosing their homes or the ability to sue the employer for unfair dismissal. Regular folk, do not usually have the resources to protect their living styles. The laws that are in place now, are the same laws that will see our small pensions being reduce or in the case of a company being bankrupt - no pensions will be protected. Much like Abitibi/Bowater, the auto workers pensions are on the chopping block. Yet CEOs, top management, politicians and civil servants will never have their pensions, or wages on the chopping block.  I can think of  more situations in terms of how our freedoms and rights are restricted by and through the use of rules and regulations, but often the elite can bypassed through their resources and position in today's society.


On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM, The Natroses  wrote:
Hi again,
On the article called " "Canadian values boil down to liberal democracy" http://tinyurl.com/qq6y23
I do so object to the interpretation of a liberal democracy relating to Canada and the reasons for a stronger system for Canadian citizenship. 
"In fact, Mr. Kenney grasps something that my students don't. Despite what most Canadians have been taught that we think, multiculturalism is not our primary value. In a speech in Calgary on April 14, Mr. Kenney asserted that to be Canadian is to be something rather than nothing, something different from what one was before migrating to our shores. Canada isn't merely a mosaic of what its immigrants already were. "We want to make sure that when people become Canadians, they totally understand that Canadian history becomes their history, Canadian values become their values." But what, again, are these values? Mr. Kenney offered two examples. The first was the supremacy of the civil law (as opposed to, for example, sharia law) and the second was gender equality."
and than adds, "In a subsequent interview, Mr. Kenney elaborated this theme. "We can't afford to be complacent about the challenge of integration. We want to avoid the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries."
The reference to Europe is instructive. Mr. Kenney, already an MP, was too busy to attend the Seymour Martin Lipset Memorial Lecture on Democracy and Democratization delivered in Washington and Toronto in November of 2005. One of the most prestigious lectures around - I confess to being its Canadian co-chair - this one featured American sage Francis Fukuyama. Having recently returned from Europe, he reported that thoughtful Europeans were in a quandary. They found themselves tending simultaneously in two opposite directions. They were increasingly nervous about large blocs of undigested immigrants clinging to non-European ways. At the same time, and for all the pompous and self-congratulatory rhetoric of the European Union, they were increasingly incapable of articulating what it meant to be European. Having sought to accommodate the newcomers by reinterpreting Europe as a hollow shell profuse in apologies for its former self, they found that empty vessels exerted weak powers of integration."

If Mr. Kenney and others are worried about Canada, felling into the same mess and problems that Europe is having, instead of beating around the bush - admit to the people that Muslims who immigrant, have a tendency to think they ways and culture are superior to all others. It shows when Muslims immigrate to Western countries, where they have less tendencies to be open about their culture, their ways to non-Muslims. Muslims will insulate themselves, from what they see as amoral, and vile ways that Western people have. But as I have seen growing up, the first to third generations of immigrants who where either Jewish or Christian, had a great reluctance to change their ways. But there is a big difference between the Muslims and other groups who immigrated to Canada or United States. The difference is, there was a willingness to communicate and shared their belief system, traditions, and culture to others who did not share the same values. Whereas the Muslims, are far less willing to do the same thing, based on their belief that their ways is far more superior.
Before 9-11 and after, I and many others have been subjected to this superior belief as we go about our daily lives. In my case, one incident comes to mind that still brings hot angry boiling to the surface. I was in a shopping mall on day, back in the 80s, where my son had a temper tantrum because he wanted another ride on the mechanical horse and I said no more. After he calm down, we proceeded to walk away from the horse, a man dress in designer suit approach us, and proceeded to tell me that I was a terrible mother, and should be reported to the authorities. He had an middle-eastern accent, and his tone of voice spoke volumes of a superior attitude, dripping of a Muslim man who is accustomed in his culture, where males dominate and control all aspects of daily living. Whatever, the male Muslim dictates - the family of women and children must abide by. After I got over my shock of anyone approaching me over the incident that is quite common, especially in a mall; I became very angry, and in a low voice I finally spoke. I said, "You have some nerve telling me how to be a mother, when people like you come from countries..." I was interrupted at that point, and he demanded to know what I was implying. I responded, you are in Canada, and not some backward country. Of course, he didn't like it and proceeded to tell me he was going to report me to the authorities. I said good luck, and started to walk away. He than block me from going, and said he was serious. What riveted me at that point, was his eyes. If eyes could kill, I would not be writing this article. His eyes, spoke of a deep seated anger that was directed at me, but also at the values of Canadians in general. During this event, he was raising his voice where I was keeping it to a low volume. I believe he was hoping other people would come to his rescue. What happened,  it was the women shoppers who stopped or slow down who had seen the original event of the horse ride. They did not come to my rescue, because either they thought I was handling it and some more so were afraid, if they intervene - it will become a major incident in a mall. I ended it, by raising my voice by telling him, do what you think you have to do and I timed it when there was an opening in the crowded mall. A few women than approached me, and asked me if I was O.K.

This experience and others, has shaped my attitudes where I see Muslims less willing or even incapable of sharing their values and cultures in a meaningful way in a Western country and its people. Since 9-11, the Muslim immigrants are far less vocal like the Middle-Eastern man in a public setting. And now, the Muslim immigrants have retreated where they actively imposed their culture values on their children, and on their children's children - where there is little chance of Canadian values gaining a foothold in Muslim households.
Europe has a major problem, and soon it will be Canada's and United States problem. But to implied at the end of the article, "It seems paradoxical, but is not, that what is most fundamental for Canada is in no way distinctive to it. It is what it has in common with many other societies (but alas, still far too few of them), namely liberal democracy. Liberal democracy implies a way of life - not equal openness to all such - one founded on the individual conceived as the bearer of inalienable rights. "Multiculturalism" may be one feature of our liberal democracy, but only in strict subordination to this more basic one. Canada's slogan is not, "Let a thousand honour killings bloom." Mr. Kenney grasps this. He is right in insisting that we teach our immigrants to grasp it too." 
A liberal democracy and the values that are derived from it, imposes that all are equal under a liberal democracy, whereas people of  the Muslim culture advocates the very opposite.
Most people of various ethnic groups, religious groups of the past, became part of the Canadian mosaic by third generation. I think what the government is doing by increasing the knowledge of Canadian values to qualify for Canadian citizenship is only part of the solution. There is no simple solution to a dilemma where a group of immigrants are less likely to become part of the mosaic of Canada, when their religion and way of life, opposes and advocates the very opposite of our values and way of life are advocating. 

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:32 AM, The Natroses wrote
Hi Joe,
 
"Debate over power bills heating up", in Nova Scotia, where harmonized sales tax, an extra 8 % is added on your hydro bill. The current government, became alarmed, when tax revenues dropped when they included all taxpayers, no matter what income. So they decided to take it back. Ontario residents can look forward to paying this extra tax, on not only on hydro, but on most products and services, and yes even for funerals. Even though, fewer Ontario residents uses electric heat, but they do used air conditioning to cool their homes and businesses. And this amounts to the same type and size of revenue collecting, as it is in the Atlantic provinces. Ontario will be rolling in the dollars, and this is complements of  the regular folk.
What no one is telling anybody, is that once the Ontario government become accustom to the extra revenue, they will soon start to ignored the price increases on goods and services, that the corporations declares that are needed to make a profit. You see, as prices rise, the sales tax revenue rises too. Good for governments, bad for the people.
Some will argue, that regulation can be put in place for hydro and other utilities that would set and regulated prices. Well NL, has regulation. At the present time, 99 cents per litre for gasoline, and in St. John's, it is slightly cheaper by a few pennies, than the rest of the country. Presently, in Ontario, the prices in Southern Ontario run from 76.3 to 79.5 but in Northern Ontario the prices run from 99.9 to a high of 102.9. As you can see, there is about a 25 cents difference between both locales. Once harmonization takes place, the people in Northern Ontario will be screaming, because the price difference will be increase that much more. Than the Ontario government, will be justified into setting up a regulatory regime, where most will pay in and around the same price, as it is in NL. Now, the gas companies will be screaming but not as loud. They will do the same thing as it is being done in the Atlantic provinces. They will shut down gas stations that do not meet the sales targets. The stations that will be targeted, will be the stations located in rural areas. Many of a small rural town, have either no gas station or they have to travel a distance to acquire gas. Some will say, the independents will move in. Yes, they have move in, where the big gas stations have moved out. But, what has happened in NL and other places, is that the independents are happy with their small profits and it is enough to make a living and since price wars have been eliminated due to the regulatory regime, they attract customers through different means. The price of gas becomes a secondary factor, and other factors such as being able to buy different products becomes the primary factors. Everyone is happy, except for the consumers. On the other side, utilities rates in will slowly increased, and eventually be on parred with the higher rates in Northern Ontario. It happened in NL, where harmonization of taxes has increases the cost of living on the backs of the consumers, and allowing governments to decrease the costs of big and small businesses doing business in the province. Proponents of harmonized tax, like to preach that by reducing costs to businesses, the savings will be pass on to the consumers. This could not be further from the truth, where in reality it keeps prices at the highest the market can bare, competition is whittled away concerning price of products and services and competition is on more on other factors such as quality or name brands. It is governments and big business interests, to have harmonized taxes, because it is highly profitable for both. The losers are the consumers, where in many cases we have no choice but to purchased the products or services that are necessary if we want to live in the 21st century.    

===================================
Subject: RE: Daily Digest May 9, 2009
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"

Christy Clark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

Popular broadcaster, columnist and former provincial Liberal cabinet minister, Christy Clark, 
called on her thousands of listeners across BC to join her in voting yes for BC-STV in the referendum

Dialogue's e-mail newsletter is produced by Maurice King, volunteer publisher of the not-for-profit Dialogue magazine.   Send your letters and comments regarding this Newsletter to: Maurice King

Strike me dead, but this video is boffo! I don't live in BC and I haven't given much thought to STV-like voting systems in the past ... but Christy Clark DOES make a good argument for them. Must-see for anyone's political education, whether one comes to agree with STV or not.
 
===================================
From: Tom Brewer
Strange as it is Harper and his band of stalwarts allow the likes of George Busch to come to Calgary.
 
Hahahaha .. Please Tom, take no offense, but that's a great typo you've made. Seems that fingers have a mind of their own and that they like to crack jokes.
 
'Busch' is (or was?) a brand of beer in the US, and I couldn't help but make the link to your being a 'Brewer', hahahaha.
 
Good one! And doubly so, given that I'd've figured it easier to come up with something about Jimmy Carter and Nilly Beer.
 
Cheers! (<-- ?!?)


Christy Clark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

Popular broadcaster, columnist and former provincial Liberal cabinet minister, Christy Clark, 
called on her thousands of listeners across BC to join her in voting yes for BC-STV in the referendum

Dialogue's e-mail newsletter is produced by Maurice King, volunteer publisher of the not-for-profit Dialogue magazine.   Send your letters and comments regarding this Newsletter to: Maurice King

Strike me dead, but this video is boffo! I don't live in BC and I haven't given much thought to STV-like voting systems in the past ... but Christy Clark DOES make a good argument for them. Must-see for anyone's political education, whether one comes to agree with STV or not.
 
 
===================================
From: Tom Brewer
Strange as it is Harper and his band of stalwarts allow the likes of George Busch to come to Calgary.
 
Hahahaha .. Please Tom, take no offense, but that's a great typo you've made. Seems that fingers have a mind of their own and that they like to crack jokes.
 
'Busch' is (or was?) a brand of beer in the US, and I couldn't help but make the link to your being a 'Brewer', hahahaha.
 
Good one! And doubly so, given that I'd've figured it easier to come up with something about Jimmy Carter and Nilly Beer.
 
 
Cheers! (<-- ?!?)


Subject: RE: Daily Digest May 7, 2009
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
From: The Natroses
Hi Joe,
To Zeb and others  that are interested in the War of 1812, and other events in our history that led to Canada becoming a nation in 1867.
                          .                          .                          .

. So, I have my doubts that governments will come up with the cash in a timely fashion, and where the celebrations will be once again lopsided, with the American version of the War of 1812 events. But then again, it will suit the Canadian government purposes, since it will not be telling Canadians of a past where the builders of this country were ordinary people,with humbled education backgrounds and not the politicians of today, with their demanding hand in everybody's back pocket.

Right on! When I get a good, rollicking 'Your nation's so silly' conversation going with an American, I always bring up the War of 1812. I tell them that they declared it (although, to be fair, they had some grievances ... invading Canada was out of proportion with the irritants, though), invaded Canada, captured Montreal, attacked Quebec City, fought at York (Toronto), and ... got chased back past their borders by British troops and Canadian militia, had Washington DC cannoned and fired by the British Navy, had the US President's residence (not yet 'the White House') burnt and looted, etc., etc. They (and pretty much all Canadians) are always surprised to learn that British regulars and Canadian militia have been the only ones to 'successfully' invade and beat up the US during its short history (so don't mess!).
 
Add to that that we invaded Russia in 1917 (the US did, too) and that we fought from the first during WW-I and WW-II, and you've got one martial nation in your mind all of a sudden. (Interesting fact: during WW-II, per capita, Canada paid more in the war effort than any other nation). Yow!
 
We're a lot more about peace, love, and milk-and-honey these days, but it's always interesting to know what we've been up to so far.
And add to that that the Monroe Doctrine never applied to us, nyah nyah!

===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Hi Joe:
*Swine Flu* - unless you and I start dropping like flies, the WHO has just become another of a long list of alarmist organizations that scream bloody blue murder to achieve some level of relevance only to prove that they haven't a clue. 165 Canadians out of 33 million have had this flu, and China locks up all Canadians visiting there. NASA wants me to believe it found a piece of Mars in the Antarctic that was blown off that planet by a meteor, delivered to Earth, only to be discovered within a couple of hundred of years of us sifting  through the ice. Al Gore and David Suzuki want us to believe man is causing the earth of heat up and believe the solution involves sending money to places that never developed much beyond the stone age and tribal conflict. I can't even take my vehicle to Canadian Tire for a tune up without some twit there trying to soak me for all sorts of parts to make it run to his high standards, rather than my own. As for political parties being the bastion of democracy, I guess we already know the answer to that one. Now, if there is somebody out there who I can actually trust, someone who might actually have a clue, please let me know. You get the feeling that if they are not trying to screw you, that they are simply being retarded, and there seems to be an awful lot of them who are "they."

Well, Dr. Stratos is always pleased to Let the People Know His Wisdom, hahahaha. Here goes:
 
The Mars meteor thing is plausible, in that it's made up of minerals similar to parts of Mars' surface and different from those of Earth's. Also, the meteor's known to have fallen to Earth because its minerals are different from others in Antarctica and because it's been scorched during entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

Plus, the minerals are known to exist on Mars' surface (and probably not on Earth's?).
 
Al Gore is a putz. And any scientist who came on board with him in saying that Earth is CLEARLY on a lasting trend to heating up and that it's all driven by high atmospheric CO2 ought to be shot and pissed on. For one thing, when Mr. Gore started his crusade, this 'global warming' thing had only started about what ... five years earlier? Any climate honest climate scientist will tell you that we have no clue of whether that's just a short-term blip or whether it's significant. With climate trends maybe becoming discernible with the passage of perhaps decades or maybe several centuries or millenia, we simply don't know what a five-year blip means, what its effects are or will be, etc. etc. Add to that that we simply don't know how the Earth works climate-wise, and that despite some smart-alecks' computer models predicting Cosmic Doom. Add to that that we have no clue on what's driving global heating if heating there is. For all we know, the cause is external to Earth and there's nothing for us to do about it.

By 'global warming thing', I mean that temperature started rising abruptly in 1998. What it's done since then I have no clue (has it leveled off? slowed in its rising? maybe receded a bit?). Given that we never seem to hear about what's going on RIGHT NOW (and even then ...), there's reason for suspicion. That being said, Al Gore's STILL a putz. And even if he proves to be right in the end.


So, when a UN organization comes up with an alarmist report based on short-term data that probably doesn't suffice (and isn't known to suffice), on computer models whose comprehensiveness is nowhere near ... uuuhhh .. comprehensive (with models not known to be difinitely accurate) , and whose conclusion is that it's 90% certain that rising atmospheric-CO2 concentrations are behind it all, one can only conclude that the report is a political figment of the imagination and NOT something based on science.

To be more precise, the science behind global climate studies and dynamics is nowhere near comprehensive. Thus, the models are based largely on assumptions, selected data, and calculations that might not reflect reality by any stretch of the imagination. Add to that 'system nonlinearities', chaos theory, etc., and you get 'butterfly effects' (i.e., butterflies creating air turbulence that grow into hurricanes) and one realizes that we don't really know what we're talking about, '90% certain' UN scientists notwithstanding.
 
All that to say: time for research and some mitigating, precautionary measures (might as well clean up our act while our minds are focused on it). But it's NEVER time to justify this by fanning public hysteria (and by dangling promises of $$$ to Third World countries, many of whose governments know a good $$$-making boondoggle when they see it).

d education backgrounds and not the politicians of today, with their demanding hand in everybody's back pocket.

Right on! When I get a good, rollicking 'Your nation's so silly' conversation going with an American, I always bring up the War of 1812. I tell them that they declared it (although, to be fair, they had some grievances ... invading Canada was out of proportion with the irritants, though), invaded Canada, captured Montreal, attacked Quebec City, fought at York (Toronto), and ... got chased back past their borders by British troops and Canadian militia, had Washington DC cannoned and fired by the British Navy, had the US President's residence (not yet 'the White House') burnt and looted, etc., etc. They (and pretty much all Canadians) are always surprised to learn that British regulars and Canadian militia have been the only ones to 'successfully' invade and beat up the US during its short history (so don't mess!).
 
Add to that that we invaded Russia in 1917 (the US did, too) and that we fought from the first during WW-I and WW-II, and you've got one martial nation in your mind all of a sudden. (Interesting fact: during WW-II, per capita, Canada paid more in the war effort than any other nation). Yow!
 
We're a lot more about peace, love, and milk-and-honey these days, but it's always interesting to know what we've been up to so far.
And add to that that the Monroe Doctrine never applied to us, nyah nyah!

===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Hi Joe:
*Swine Flu* - unless you and I start dropping like flies, the WHO has just become another of a long list of alarmist organizations that scream bloody blue murder to achieve some level of relevance only to prove that they haven't a clue. 165 Canadians out of 33 million have had this flu, and China locks up all Canadians visiting there. NASA wants me to believe it found a piece of Mars in the Antarctic that was blown off that planet by a meteor, delivered to Earth, only to be discovered within a couple of hundred of years of us sifting  through the ice. Al Gore and David Suzuki want us to believe man is causing the earth of heat up and believe the solution involves sending money to places that never developed much beyond the stone age and tribal conflict. I can't even take my vehicle to Canadian Tire for a tune up without some twit there trying to soak me for all sorts of parts to make it run to his high standards, rather than my own. As for political parties being the bastion of democracy, I guess we already know the answer to that one. Now, if there is somebody out there who I can actually trust, someone who might actually have a clue, please let me know. You get the feeling that if they are not trying to screw you, that they are simply being retarded, and there seems to be an awful lot of them who are "they."

Well, Dr. Stratos is always pleased to Let the People Know His Wisdom, hahahaha. Here goes:
 
The Mars meteor thing is plausible, in that it's made up of minerals similar to parts of Mars' surface and different from those of Earth's. Also, the meteor's known to have fallen to Earth because its minerals are different from others in Antarctica and because it's been scorched during entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

Plus, the minerals are known to exist on Mars' surface (and probably not on Earth's?).
 
Al Gore is a putz. And any scientist who came on board with him in saying that Earth is CLEARLY on a lasting trend to heating up and that it's all driven by high atmospheric CO2 ought to be shot and pissed on. For one thing, when Mr. Gore started his crusade, this 'global warming' thing had only started about what ... five years earlier? Any climate honest climate scientist will tell you that we have no clue of whether that's just a short-term blip or whether it's significant. With climate trends maybe becoming discernible with the passage of perhaps decades or maybe several centuries or millenia, we simply don't know what a five-year blip means, what its effects are or will be, etc. etc. Add to that that we simply don't know how the Earth works climate-wise, and that despite some smart-alecks' computer models predicting Cosmic Doom. Add to that that we have no clue on what's driving global heating if heating there is. For all we know, the cause is external to Earth and there's nothing for us to do about it.

By 'global warming thing', I mean that temperature started rising abruptly in 1998. What it's done since then I have no clue (has it leveled off? slowed in its rising? maybe receded a bit?). Given that we never seem to hear about what's going on RIGHT NOW (and even then ...), there's reason for suspicion. That being said, Al Gore's STILL a putz. And even if he proves to be right in the end.

So, when a UN organization comes up with an alarmist report based on short-term data that probably doesn't suffice (and isn't known to suffice), on computer models whose comprehensiveness is nowhere near ... uuuhhh .. comprehensive (with models not known to be difinitely accurate) , and whose conclusion is that it's 90% certain that rising atmospheric-CO2 concentrations are behind it all, one can only conclude that the report is a political figment of the imagination and NOT something based on science.
To be more precise, the science behind global climate studies and dynamics is nowhere near comprehensive. Thus, the models are based largely on assumptions, selected data, and calculations that might not reflect reality by any stretch of the imagination. Add to that 'system nonlinearities', chaos theory, etc., and you get 'butterfly effects' (i.e., butterflies creating air turbulence that grow into hurricanes) and one realizes that we don't really know what we're talking about, '90% certain' UN scientists notwithstanding.
 
All that to say: time for research and some mitigating, precautionary measures (might as well clean up our act while our minds are focused on it). But it's NEVER time to justify this by fanning public hysteria (and by dangling promises of $$$ to Third World countries, many of whose governments know a good $$$-making boondoggle when they see it).

===================================