betsy

You may not see the partisanship in it...but I do. Of course, would they admit to it?

The first time this "flick off" campaign came out, the environment guy was wearing this tshirt that says "Flick Off." I just caught them in the middle of the dialogue as I was cruising the channel, not really knowing what I was watching....but my eyes zeroed in on his tshirt right away. From the way he was sitting, his tshirt read like "F*** O**" I was intrigued, and didn't change the channel. I ended up listening to the discussion. I guess the slogan works. But of course, it was hard not to make fun of it when I relayed the news to my hubby. lol!

And it's not because the Conservatives are not trying. In an interview today with a rep for the gas company, he said that they find this new plan really tough. Gas companies in Europe, he said, do not have a set target to meet like this one. The anchorwoman for CTV flatly asked the rep for the Environmantal Protection, "why not give where credit is due....considering the Liberals have not done anything for a decade, at least the government had now made some steps towards the right directions." Of course, the environment guy pooh-poohed that. He dug up the past when Harper was leader of the opposition, etc...

I looked it up cause I've never heard of it. This is what I found. "The new study was conducted by researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (JAMA, 4/20/05). Dr. Katherine M. Flegal and colleagues based their conclusions on a national survey that is conducted periodically and is broadly representative of the U.S. population. The participants offer a wide range of information about themselves, including weight, smoking, age, race, and alcohol consumption. All of the data for these surveys were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention. After this study got considerable media attention last month, the nation's pundits went into full gear, gloating over the fact that the "food police" can now get off our backs and let us return to the pleasure of eating whatever we want. So what if I'm overweight--now it's healthy! That's exactly the take-home message that disturbs Marion Nestle, PhD, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University and author of Food Politics (University of California Press). "I'm floored that the CDC could put out a paper like this without putting it in context for the public," she said in a telephone interview. "People think it's healthy to be overweight, yet there is nothing in this [study] about illness," explained Dr. Nestle. "It's about excess deaths." Dr. Flegal, the lead author of the new study, was asked in a telephone interview whether she had any trouble with people concluding that it is healthy to be overweight. "We prefer to be cautious about our findings and just say that we found no excess risk of death associated with overweight," she responded., "We did not look at health conditions associated with excess weight." When asked whether it is correct to conclude that people who are overweight but not obese are better off than the people of normal weight, Dr. Flegal said, "It's not unreasonable in terms of mortality," she said. "Overweight people did have fewer deaths than people of normal weight and the differences were statistically significant." There is a reason that Dr. Flegal speaks in terms of excess risk of death and fewer deaths. The study did not look at causes. Participants were divided into groups according to age and body weights and then compared in terms of mortality. They had provided personal information to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys which were conducted several times from the early 1970s through 2000. Four measures of body mass index, or BMI were used in this survey: underweight (under 18.5), normal (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 30), obesity (30 to 35), and extremely obese (35 plus). As for the counterintuitive finding that obesity is associated with only a modestly increased relative risk of mortality, Dr. Flegal and colleagues speculate, within the conclusion of their study, that this could be due to improvements in medical care. As for the excess deaths among the very thin, the researchers were able to rule out illness-induced weight loss as a factor, but offered no speculation about this finding. "The majority of deaths occur among the very old, and it's pretty well established [in other studies] that most people will weigh less as they age beyond 80 years," Dr. Flegal explained. [However,] "our data showed that 50% of the people over 80 were overweight." Some obesity researchers believe that we have yet to see the full effects of the massive increase in the percentage of Americans, including children, who are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The expected increase in heart-related deaths may very well be years away. The first thing people diagnosed with this condition are told to do is to lose weight. Dr. Nestle, the N.Y. University professor, is concerned that people will not take diabetes 2 seriously as a result of this study. "Overweight is a problem," she said, "Maybe it's not a huge problem, but how risky it is depends on other factors," she said, referring to metabolic response and body shape (an excess of abdominal fat). "Not everyone who is overweight will go on to develop diabetes 2, but the risk for this illness is higher among people who are," she cautioned. "Of the people who get diabetes 2, 85% are overweight." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m081...30/ai_n13774457

Your source, please. Can you provide a link?

I believe you have your facts a little mixed up Betsy. Nobody has managed to link diabetes with carbohydrates. I don't think so. Carbohydrate may not be the only cause of diabetes...but it's definitely associated with diabetes type 2, which is I believe the most common form of diabetes. "The Simple Explanation. Other than the genes you inherited, there are two primary causes of diabetes: 1) a long-term diet that has been high in carbohydrates and 2) nutritional deficiencies. Your body breaks down carbohydrates into sugar (glucose) which then enters your blood stream. The more carbohydrates you eat, the higher your blood sugar goes. In response, your body produces insulin. Insulin's job is to push the blood sugar into the cells. On the surface of the cells in your body are insulin receptors, which act like little doors that open and close to regulate the inflow of blood sugar. After many years of consuming a high-carbohydrate diet, your cells have been bombarded with so much insulin that these doors begin to malfunction and shut down." http://www.realfoodnutrients.com/DB/Causes.htm "1) Obesity The number one risk factor for Type 2 diabetes is obesity. The National Center for Health Statistics states that 30 percent of adults are obese. That's 60 million people. Greater weight means a higher risk of insulin resistance, because fat interferes with the body's ability to use insulin. According to the same study, the number of overweight kids has tripled since 1980. The number of children being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes has also risen. • Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes 2) Sedentary Lifestyle The Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Health (USA, 1996) states that "a sedentary lifestyle is damaging to health and bears responsibility for the growing obesity problems". Inactivity and being overweight go hand in hand towards a diagnosis of Type 2. Muscle cells have more insulin receptors than fat cells, so a person can decrease insulin resistance by exercising. Being more active also lowers blood sugar levels by helping insulin to be more effective. It's a win-win. 3) Unhealthy Eating Habits 90% of people who have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes are overweight. Unhealthy eating contributes largely to obesity. Too much fat, not enough fiber, and too many simple carbohydrates all contribute to a diagnosis of diabetes. Eating right is can turn the diagnosis around and reverse or prevent Type 2." http://diabetes.about.com/od/symptomsdiagn...riskfactors.htm Dead wrong! Your statement shows you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Atkins!. Atkins is not about counting calories! It's nowhere near to having low in calories. You know how much calories there is in a steak teeming with fat???? If you still stand by your claim that Atkins is low in calories...then back it up with your source. Anyone here who'd been on Atkins know that we can eat as much meat that we want...and there's no counting the fats or the protein. It's only the amount of carbs that we worry about!

He accosted Baird in public, and it's obvious Suzuki was aiming to get the publicity to embarass Baird in public. He said: "I AM disappointed with the plan, John. Iam disappointed." Talk about sellf-importance. So he's disappointed! Well, so am I! Disappointed that so far, nobody had really fired back in his face! Baird should've answered: "Of course, Davey...I know you're disappointed. You'll always be disappointed. Nothing the Conservatives do will ever be good enough for you! That's the truth of the matter...so don't bother me with your bs!"

The Environment Minister is responsible for environmental issues. And those issues include the economic effects on the country. Why is that hard to figure? Should each cabinet minister work in a vacuum? What does Suzuki think our politicians should do? Become activists? Only concern themselves with one issue? That's a luxury left for activists and lobby groups. And btw, it's our government that's meant to govern. Not activists and lobby groups. At least Rachel Carson had the courtesy to fade into obscurity after her nonsense. David goes on....and on....and on....

David Suzuki was not operating as a private citizen. He was financed heavily by the CBC in the 60's and 70's....and beyond. His public education is nothing more than liberal propoganda. Furthermore, his science background is genetics, so his authority as an "environmental scientist" is no better than the average well-read citizen. Combine this unprofessional designation with a fanatical liberal bias, and we've got David Suzuki. Don't imagine that his work is altruistic. He is ensuring his own "employment"....and that of all his disciples, by fear mongering that all our children are going to shrivel up and die. There is climate change. Nobody denies that. There's been huge climate shifts even in historical times. The point is, not only are we not responsible for it....but we cannot really do anything about it. In 2050, these same fanatics will say, "see we told you so!" And it won't matter an iota what the climate situation is then...since they'll say , "see we didn't do enough" or "see, good thing we acted!" It's clearly liberal nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be downplaying the inaction of the Liberals, and criticizing the actions of the Conservatives. Nothing new. This is the modus operandi of liberal "thinkers." I must admit the liberal thinkers are masters of deception - give credit where credit is due. But it's lies, nonetheless.

Suzuki explains: If Canada, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world does not show leadership, how can countries like China follow our example? I say, Baloney to that Mr. Suzuki! Either you're so naive....or an expert at spin! Canada, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world had always shown exemplary leadership in issues involving HUMAN RIGHTS since God knows when. Do you see China following our lead? Then he says: I told Baird frankly. "Mr Baird, you are not the Minister of Finance. You are the Minister of Environment." And I remind Suzuki: Well, you are not an economist. You are just a blasted environmental activist! Is this guy even an environmental scientist????

I know. But as I'm just on maintenance....and I had already found out how much approximately carbs I can take without gaining weight, that amount is well within my boundary. Besides, Atkins method does not include the count of fiber, and beans is also high in fiber. I've got the recipe of the particular kind of soup my dad's been eating (mung bean soup to be precised)....it's a family recipe. Believe it or not, it's loaded with tomatoes, lots of garlic and parsley! It's usually cooked with either shrimps, chicken or pork. So it's really a meal in one dish. I've had it every now and then in the past. It was actually one of my food when I tried the low-fat diet years ago. We're talking not only one bowl of it in one sitting for me then...and PLUS there was rice (lol). I used to eat tons of carbs back then, because I just loved my rice and pasta. Couldn't live without the rice especially. But Atkins had changed my eating habit. Atkins had "weaned" me off pasta and, especially rice.....that I no longer feel the NEED TO HAVE rice. I don't even eat rice every day....not to mention every meal (like I used to do). And I've changed since doing the induction with Atkins. That was about three years ago. Yep, there are a lot of pop diets and pop science around......and knowing what is true means experimentation or studies that involved years of practice. Who knows, the sudden rise of obesity now is the consequence of those high-carbs/low-fat (also meaning low-protein) diet that became the bible of all diet world-wide. Something is wrong when a society that had practiced what practically food guidelines had taught is now suddenly gripped with obesity and diabetes. Diabetes is a very telling disease that is associated with carbohydrate. Yes, I'd say we've been brainwashed. And yes it's all about making money....someone called it the General Mills Diet. Having started in the 70's, Atkins method had been one, if not the only longest diet regime that not only is still around (and copied and tweaked around)....but as what CTV news had said a few weeks back, studies had shown that among the popular diets around, Atkins had been the one that showed the best results in health benefits. Of course, some critics still say they're "still concerned about the long-term effect." What do they mean by long-term? Atkins had been around for years, and still came on top! That should mean....and prove something!

Ho-ho-ho! They got a well-rehearsed spin for that....when somebody pointedly voiced out that very thing . One Liberal strategist said : "There's a difference. It is an attack on policy. Not character." Lol.

Our standards had already been lowered. And without the help of outside forces. All we have to do is look around us here for the corruptions and endless revelations of shenanigans found mostly in third world countries. Important decisions here are mostly motivated by politicking for populairty votes....financial gain. Even our own law enforcement agency, the RCMP....is undergoing such eye-opening revelations. We have our own small groups of insurgents (although they have not yet reached alarming scale), that nobody seems to know how to handle. Or nobody seems to care. Until we start doing the body count...and mounting pressures from the public prod these politicians to get a grip! Our prison gate is a revolving door. The so-called rights of criminals supercedes that of the rightful rights of victims. Muslim women in Canada had exposed a letter threatening them of extreme violence should they (the women) pursue the freedom that women normally enjoy in this country. This is what we're supposed to be fighting for in Afghanistan! Who is doing something about this? I don't hear anyone....especially the NDP and the Liberals (the so-called, self-proclaimed champions of women, minorities, human rights and equality). Why are they so quiet about this? Their idea of human rights seem to be out of whacked. They only see and seek to interfere in Afghan detainees for selfish reasons. The detainees make such convenient props for posturing....and all the better since exploiting this situation is like having an ad that's not costing the parties any cent.

Build Canadian prisons in Afghanistan (as what NDP's floating now as an alternative)? Well I thought NDP wants us out of there pronto? What happens after we leave....even two years from now? So what would that accomplish? Liberals and NDP both says: "stop giving the prisoners to the Afghan officials." They leave no other room. So where do we take these prisoners? To the Canadian military base? Well then, we need more men to send up there! And more firepower...because that base will surely be a regular target! All we could do is remind the Afghan officials to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and continuous monitoring by human rights officials. This is an Afghan war....and it is their country after all. The Afghans had suggested of bringing the prisoners in a main city....where the adherence to the Geneva Conventions can be monitored and implemented more easily. Our main concern are our own soldiers. The Afghan population know the situation in their own country....know the brutality possible for they've lived it. They know about tortures for it is part of their system! They know what to expect. It is up to them to make sure they do not become suspects of terrorism. As for those that fall through the cracks that may be innocents, it is sad. But that is the way of war. We cannot save them all.

Because he was making his speech slowly. It's when he gets passionate....and fired up....that's when it usually gets hard to follow what he's saying. At least, for me that is. Anyway, the ad looks so "staged." The part where he banged the gavel particularly and raising his arms in "victory".

I was very skinny in my teens and early twenties. The best weight I was in was when I was already in my thirties ( 5'3 1/2 in height and weighed around 115 to 117). Now I hover around 125 - 127 lbs. I've read that it's normal to gain 10 lbs when you reach middle age. I used to aim to get back to that ideal weight in the past....however, when I managed to reach 123 lbs....I noticed that I looked haggard. But of course, I'm no longer that young. So I terminated that goal. My current diet was greatly inspired by Atkins....although I did dabble in low-fat diet in the past. As I've said, you have to know your body. I know through experience that I really gain weight so fast when I eat a lot of carbs and fat (in one day)....and I've learned from experience that I could get away eating tons of carbs, as long as I go low-fat. However, I didn't feel satisfied or comfortable in the end. There's that bloated feeling about it. Oh boy, I took rolaids practically everyday due to high acid/heartburn. My mom and brother suffered from ulcer....so I'm thinking that I'm a likely candidate. Atkins...or a milder version of high protein/low carb diet is where I feel most comfortable. I noticed too that it eliminated my high acidity (I don't get any heartburns even though I eat high in fat). And for me, that's really good news! I may not get any ulcers at all (knock on wood). Sometimes I get tempted to eat high carbs....but I consider those dishes as "treats".....and I try to make sure that I go right back on track afterwards. Once you know how your body and metabolism responds to certain things, it is easier. My current diet is not a hodge-podge of other diet fads. It is impossible to eat all the things that are said to be good for us in a day. And it is so easy to take them for granted. Like fish for example. I realized that it's been months since I ate any fish. And my dad's been preaching since when I was old enough to know about the benefits of eating beans/lentils (and he's now 93 with no heart-related problems or cholesterol....so I guess I better start listening). Cranberry juice is good for the kidneys...and cabbage is said to be good in cleaning the toxic from the liver. Planning and sticking to the plan makes it easier not to leave out some things that are quite beneficial.

It is all the more worrisome to have Dion spouting off suggestions like this....after all, it was Dion who had weakened our anti-terrorist laws. And now he suggests we import these suspects/prisoners here. In our midst. So soon they'll be walking freely amongst us. If this is how he'll deal with our enemies in a time of war....just think how he's going to be tough on just regular everyday crimes. Btw, why is it so easy to believe these allegations of tortures at face value? Just because there are 30 or more allegations? Even if there are thousands....you tell me it's not highly possible that they were all trained to allege this atrocities to discredit their enemies? Look at how we react! In any normal criminal proceedings, the credibility of the witness is taken into serious consideration. What more with fanatical people fueled by a maniacal desire to impose their belief on society?

The keyword is "you think." You don't know anymore than I do what made him retract....if he ever did retract. Yes, he may've retracted (I don't know anything about that)....but the point is, why did he suggest a stupid thing like that in the first place? In other words, he mouthed out without really analysing what he's talking about. Therefore, he could easily act impulsively and irresponsibly...without analysing the possible consequences of his decisions. That's what's scarey. To have someone at the top doing all the decisions in a knee-jerk fashion....and then saying OOOOPS later....when the damage is done, and it becomes apparent that what he just decided upon was another BOONDAGLE!

German war is quite different than the type of warfare the world is facing now. Not that I'm saying Germans didn't do any atrocities. But it is naive to base decisions now to exactly how it was done sixty years ago. We didn't see any Germans blowing themselves up...DELIBERATELY and PURPOSEFULLY seeking to kill as many innocent civilians just for SHOCK VALUE. We didn't see any Germans slowly beheading anyone with a dull knife infront of the cameras....just for SHOCK VALUE. We didn't see any German soldiers involved in rampant kidnappings, hijacking, storming of buildings, etc.., in exchange for release of prisoners. The Taliban and the terrorists of today had even included purposefully using children to blow up for the sake of....SHOCK VALUE. And let's face it. Canadians it seem are those most susceptible to these SHOCK VALUE (as demonstrated by the endless quaking everytime it is reported a soldier died at war). We don't have the stomach for this. You'll see the endless demand and plea for negotiations and appeasement for the terrorists. Heck, we'll even probably end up justifying terrorism in our own land. The terrorists will have a field day with us! And we better get ready for endless memorials! You want to have these people inside our country??? You're willing to take a chance on our own security....just because you think there is some injustice done??? And I bet most of you who are in favor of having these people here were the first one who had suffered mountains of angst at the shootings done in schools! And yet here you are....willingly ready to put our own citizens, not to mention our own children...at risk. When terrorist start storming our schools and blowing up or beheading our children in exchange for the release of these prisoners....maybe you'll see how stupid this idea is. But of course, it would be too late by then.

The same as we all do have that same right! get used to that fact.

Yeah. But on whose dime? They're neither strong, nor thriving. They're hanging on by their fingertips. If we ever let go....they're gone. Unless they get off their butts and start looking after themselves. Stop relying on the handouts. Have some dignity!

Yeah. Like what...making molotove cocktails out of their beer and liquor bottles? Those so-called protests are just an excuse to have their BBQ party! These are the kinds of natives we are supporting financially for life....literally pissing their life away! And wasting our money. You can keep justifying and make excuses for their entitlements and their so-called rights....rights that has no more bearing when they go on to trample on the rights of others! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Actually i need not make any excuses for native entitilements and rights. They are the only ones with any natural ethical or moral right to this land. Its is you who needs to make excuses for the behavior of the occupier. Andrew We have as much right to this country like anyone else. And whether they like that or not, this country is what it is because of the whites...and not the Indians. If you don't like what it is, tough luck. Where else would they get their welfare cheque from? What is this nonsense of we were here first? So what! It doesn't work that way in the world. There's always somebody else there first! This late 21st century non-sensical definition of Indian Tribes as "first nation" is a bigger commandeering of the English language than the word "gay" was.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! So we start worshipping crows? Ha-ha-ha! But I must say....yes, whites are responsible for this mess. White politicians. For PANDERING to these people. Net detriment to our society. Virtually no production but we spend billions...in what amount to nothing more than a giant "childcare" system. Since when is it inherent right of one race to be babysat forever by another race? Our "time-out" chairs are bursting...soon they'll be demanding their very own prisons!

I think it is absurd because it is abduction and kidnapping. I don't know if you can really say kidnapping and abduction, since I assume these are Afghans....therefore Dion can say "they got extradited to Canada". Or more appropriately, "they got invited to experience ClubFed, through the generosity of the Canadians." No! Canadians should say: "Wait a minute here! Aren't we at war? Aren't we supposed to be helping the Afghans by getting rid of the Taliban? Didn't the Liberals say the Taliban are evil? Isn't that why we got involved there in the first place?" "And wait another darn minute here! Does Dion knows what he's on about? Is he lucid?" DOES HE KNNOW WHAT THIS IS DOING TO OUR TROOPS' MORALE OUT THERE? Canadians should demand, "Dion must undergo psychological evaluation!"

This is what apparently Dion is fighting for....since we cannot guarantee that the prisoners will not be tortured once we've handed them to the Afghan authorities. Don't you find this absurd? Importing to bring potentially very dangerous people to get INSIDE Canada (when the rest of the western world is desperately figuring out how to KEEP THEM AWAY)? Why is he willing to gamble and play with fire......at the grave risk of our own citizens...not to mention national security?