Freshinit

Any informed individual should have no problem conceding that one issue has taken the back-seat in mainstream media. The perpetual tension in Darfur alludes itself to a similiar occurrence of the 1990s; the Rwandan genocide. Despite the general resemblances, the ethnic violence occurrent in both decades diverged from dissimilar inducement. Unlike the massacre of 1994, Darfur has an underlying characteristic that will suppress any possibility of peace in the region, even if an International coalition were to intervene. In order to understand this ordeal, it is necessary to indulge the efforts of the environmental community. Sudan is a country located in the Sahel region of Africa. Historically this region has always experienced marginal rainfall, the most of which has came from seasonal storms called ‘monsoons’. Each year, vast bodies of water evaporate from the Indian Ocean and condense, forming clouds. These clouds, with some help from the great aerial winds , whisk away into sub-Saharan Africa, where the Sahel region is located. Here, the clouds precipitate and deliver much needed water to the crops of African farmers, and to the grazing grounds of Arab herders. It is under this system, that a thin layer of vegetation has maintained itself throughout history, making the region inhabitable to human beings for millennia. The earliest of anthropological records show evidence of kingdoms ruling in the country from as far back as 4600 years ago. Unfortunately for these ancient cultures, early in the 1960s these monsoons stopped coming. Throughout the majority of the proceeding decades, devastating droughts have ravished the area season after season. The last four decades of the 20th century saw a civilization draining its ecosystem of its only remaining energy. Each year, Arab herders would have their goats graze on fields until they were dry, and each year less and less of the fields would grow back. As the time kept ticking, these Arab nomads were forced to migrate their herds closer and closer to African crops. Eventually these Arabs were forced to feed their herds by closing in on the African crops. As a result of these inconvenient set of circumstances, tensions between the Arabs and Africans went political. Having more influence in the rest of the country was the Arab population. Thus the rebel militia group ‘Janjaweed’ was created as a solution to the herder’s problems. If Arab herders could somehow rightfully claim ownership to African crop lands, then their people could sustain life in the country for at least a little while longer. With evident support from the Government, ‘Janaweed’ militias officially sought ownership of African crops unrightfully throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. As such, a rebel group, compiled mostly of native Africans was formed in response to the lack of enforcement by the Sudanese central Government. However, by early 2003 the rebels had yet to bring about change, thus war commenced. Despite the official declaration of war coming from the rebel group, the aggressors in this ongoing conflict has been the ‘Janjaweed’ militias., or Arab herders. Presently, the conflict in Sudan has escalated to the point of genocide, and despite the ‘Darfur Peace Agreement ‘, supervised by the ‘African Union Mission in Sudan(AMIS)’, no end to the conflict is in sight. Of the little attention that this issue has received over the past three years in mainstream media, all of it has focused on pseudo-facts. In light of this, the genocide in Sudan reveals far more about our world than a typical conflict should. In observing this situation we start to understand the ever increasing role censorship plays in our media, we begin to recognize the repercussions of our day to day lifestyle and the general authenticity of our democracies whither away at the face of hypocrisy. So is there more to the conflict in Darfur? Certainly - and to avoid similiar catastrophes in the future, whether ecological, economical or social, we must rise up as individuals and take action. Democracy is a system which needs more than your vote once every four years, it needs your input every day of every year. -Lee McMillan

If individuals are the sole carriers of ethics than why is floor crossing so rare? Surely there have been many instances where an individual has disagreed with even the smallest of bills being proposed. Why then, do we not see these people crossing the floor on a weekly basis?

I think a writer for the globe and mail put it best just the other day. "You have a 20 year old drop out with limited education prospects and he is faced with two decisions: Wear steel toed boots and work in a warehouse for $11 an hour, or wear ancestrial warrior gowns and fight for the cause of your tradition." The solution to these constant territorial debates lie in early education. We must halt this generational drift, this apathy towards making something of yourself.

He is only sitting on the committee responsible overseeing telecommunication specifics. His involvement with the breach of public content laws has nothing to do with his side of the committee.

Well if he wants an integral stand on this kind of issue maybe he shouldn't lie about the alternative motives. One of the mothers of the fallen as publicly came out and criticized the non-publication of her son's casket. How can the conservatives claim they are protcting the privacy of the family members when the family members don't want the privacy in the first place?

Then let's say Harper does not want to give any undue publicity. Obviously, the death of a Canadian serving abroad is a news story and cannot be completely silenced. But one gets the feeling (and statements from the government and DoD have said as much) that there's no sense making a big deal out of these deaths when we can expect many more. That's just it though, we SHOULD be making a big deal about it. If we are going to wave off Canadian casualties like they do in the American media then where does that leave us ethically? We have a peacekeeping image and we should maintain it. War should be a rare reality in Canada, not something we pass off as an inevitability because our Government says it is. I commend the media for taking an independant stand away from that of our Government.

The Liberal party has been in shambles since the loss of the election. Did you happen to catch the statement by that darker skinned Liberal lady MP? Just the tone to her voice the entire time infuriated me. Its as if they hired an actress to officially represent their opposition.

What the Americansmust realize is our Government does not only play the role of economic promoter, but more importantly as Envrionmental safeguarder. By limiting access to our lumber by private industries we limit overproduction and the destruction of climax communities. If America wishes to unfairly tax our exports, they mmust prove that we have been dumping the product with intent to destroy the American market. The simple fact of the matter is America's "privatized lumber sector" is a withering business that has produced unrealistic price caps in which the Canadian industry must and should not adhere to. WE hve the ressources, so why should a relatively miniscule free market to the south determine which price WE should sell our product for? By the way, I sure hope no right winger tries to pull this off as a victory for the Harper Government. The United States had a very small ammount of time left to appeal this case one final time. So regardless of which Government won the January election, this deal would have inevitably gone through in a similiar fashion.

Harper and the CPC is left of the U.S. democrats, but by asserting that we (Canadians) are different doesn't make us superior. In fact, our moralizing and continuing assertion that we are better and everything the U.S. does is wrong, makes us definitely appear inferior. Don't be so quick to assume. Recently Bush has made his own suggeston to congress to limit subsidies to big oil and gasoline companies. Even NDP leader Jack Layton commented on the new progressive thinking, and did not receive a similiar vow from our Prime Minister.

News Paper sales have definately declined as far as their capital distribution is concerned. However, it is a business revolutionized with the help of computer programing. Many citizens spanning the G7 nations have created new potential through reality simulation. Newspapers are more or less present thoughts summed up through common words. at first, newspapers were a primitive fashioned form of communicating a human being's thoughts and emotions. Now, methods in which to undertsand a concept, involve complex symbolism through numbers, graphs, visual representations and statistics. The article we've just read markets our present standard for more efficient communication. If a group of skilled minds can prominently display our human spirit through material subjects then what obstruction does the view of a romantic have to complain about?

Shoop, Forgive my word choice. I just meant that in parliamentary democracy, there are certain patterns and routines politicians fall into to solving issues. In an age where technological communication is so advanced and widespread, we cannot afford to be making mistakes through ineffective bureacracy that may have worked in the past.

Geoffrey, Then what are we supposed to make of party solidarity? Certainly ethics play a part in bill proposal, so where goes the individuality when it comes to vote for bills?

As a young Calgarian in disagreement with tory policies I see Manning as a favourable choice out of a bad pile of apples. I like his desire to reform enviromentalism, implying to me that this is a man with long term goals in voice of future generations who cannot even vote yet. He certainly gives off a vibe of selflessness with this stance. An obvious advocater of increased direct democracy he is. I enjoyed throughly CPAC's televised roundtable discussion between intellectuals during th Firewood Democracy project a couple weeks ago. I don't see Ralph Klein getting involved pushing for increased activism through democratic reform, albeit his success over the past decade in Albertan politics. Somehow manning evokes trust in a young Calgarian such as myself, as if to leave me content with our provincial status as economic conservatives while at the same time acknowledge my thirst for social progression. The last thing a person like me wants to see is a centralized Government with too much power and a drone-like population, especially one that values market efficiency over the defined reasoning behind big business: applicable good fortune to humanity. We cannot deny the change that is coming with the 21st century, there is too much room for systematic error in an age so sensitive to chaos theory. Manning does a better job than any in forseeing our future not only as a province, not only as a nation, not only as practisioners of diplomacy, but of the destiny of the human race and our long term survival goals. Base your support on short sighted monetary policy, but be wary of the mark, rather taint, you leave on our descendents and what that will say of your legacy, however valuable that is to you.

Your interpretation as to why BS crossed the floor is shared by very few Canadians. She was voted in because she's pretty. Her entire political succes to date is based on being pretty. When you get beneath that there's nothing THERE there. I wouldn't go that far as to label er entire success on her physical attractiveness. Nonetheless is it undeniable that she certainly has gleaned the attention she receives from the media in order to progress her political career. Ideologically she is nothing special. As great as she has been for the Canadian automotive market, it's not as if she has made any significant reforms to te industry. We're literally entering an age where serious consideration must be made to the inneficiency of our machinery. The only efficiency Stronach actively contributes to is mass production and job creation. Her moderate reputation is only in light of the fact that she has helped aligne right wing thinkers who love tradition. Bandwagon social positions is where she shines through a crowd of outdated evangelical mps. She is skilled in nit picking the inevitable civil rights reforms that will be cemented in our constitutions over the next couple of decades. Needless to say we can expect that she has already formulated future opinions on coming-of-age concepts. Bet your last dollar that she will support the deductibly logical solution to the progression of stem cell research and its limitations. Expect confrontations with prominent religious figures over petri dish embryo manipulation.

It certainly generates attention in the media. High profile politicians like Belinda Stronach exploit inadvertently exploits parliamentary issues to mainstream society. I believe floor crossing can be beneficial to civil activism and awareness. How many stoned earthy people actually follow politics past the climax that is election time? Most people only prioritize their input into current affairs if some controversy is involved. Otherwise it becomes boring bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that would put a class of ADHD kids asleep.