Murray B.

Greetings from an Edmontonian, born and raised. A better question is why hasn't the U.S. annexed Canada by now? They could have done this after WWII with impunity. Our relationship has always been 60/40 with the U.S. which ain't bad considering that we have less than 10% of the population on the continent. It has something to do with the U.S. ideas of minority, and even individual, rights. They believe in representative democracy but not in a dictatorship of the majority. Soon after the attack on the Word Trade Center a few lunatics in Canada began spewing evil anti-American propaganda. The criticisms were unfounded but even if they were true that was certainly not the time to air them. The lunacy flourished, until finally in Feb. 2004, the Canadian magazine Macleans ran an impressive cover: It showed President Bush and had the caption, "Canadian’s to Bush: Hope you lose, Eh?" and the bizarre claim that "Only 15% of us support the President’s re-election" This was a major embarassment for the President of a country that has always been our best customer. Strange way to treat a friend, Eh? Anyway, why does that fellow in central Canada think that anyone should respect us after acting like that? P.S. Apparently the CBC has broadcast a piece claiming that V.P. Candidate Pallin looks like a porn star. Our tax dollars paid for that and what possible good can come of it?

All this means is that there is another problem that requires immediate government action and more taxpayers money spent. What do you think, that they can't tax us to combat global warming and then tax us some more to fight global cooling? Of course that would be irrational but Ottawa [the city without industry] specializes in exactly that. Remember that there would be no GST on "necessities". Salt is a necessity and is not taxed. Peanuts are a necessity and are not taxed. Salted peanuts, of course, are a luxury and are taxed. Strangely, toilet paper is taxed which makes it a luxury. Makes you wonder what they use in Ottawa. Maybe they use the Sears catalogue just like my grandpa used to do until they got the indoor plumbing. What they are really interested in doing is transferring wealth from the middle-class to the lunatic elite. "Global warming" is just one excuse to do this and if not that it would be something else. Fighting "global cooling" is just as good and with proper propaganda support from the Broadcorping Castration it might even seem reasonable to some people to do both. Of course you and I are unlikely to accept this and would have to be "re-educated" or something like that. What is really interesting is trying to figure out what their agenda really is. Dion is not so stupid that he does not understand that "global warming" is a farce. So, knowing this, why does he promote it?

It is interesting that you mention that Mr. Harper agrees 80% with an Australian Liberal party member. This suggests that he is either some sort of secret liberal or that a speechwriter copied the speech. Canada has never had an independant foreign policy. As far as I know Canada has always followed France when the PM is french and Britain when english. Mr. Chretien was french and so we followed France. If Mr. Harper was in then we might have followed Britain but this is not a sure thing. All we have to go on is political rhetoric. Are you saying that Mr. Harper will always do what what he says he is going to do? If so, then it is interesting to note that Mr. Harper has not changed our foreign policy by very much. He has NOT deployed troops to Iraq and has left the troops in Afganistan that the Liberals deployed there. Perhaps he will be the first to have a completely independent foreign policy although this will be difficult with a hundred and some countiries in the world. It seems likely that Canada will probably find itself going along with Britain or France, depending on the PM regardless of his party. A radical change would be going along with the U.S. when Britain and France did not. That still would not be independent but at least it would be a change from the past. What I don't see Mr. Harper doing is going adversarial if any of our allies are attacked again. He also is unlikely to say "Hope you lose, Eh!" [cover of Macleans] to either Senator Obama or Senator McCain. That would be completely stupid.

Are you serious? Every gangster has had a machine gun even after they were banned in 1930 or whenever it was. Today the criminals even have grenades and rocket launchers. So who are the "we" that do not have Assault rifles? If you mean law abiding citizens then what is the problem if they do have an assault rifle? Given the common and mistaken defintion of an assault rifle they are generally shooting a mid range cartridge. Most use the old Remington .223 varmint cartridge. A standard rifle might use the .308 which is more than twice as powerful. The whole "assault style" issue is complete nonsense. Should someone be able to own a heavy machine gun if it had the right style? Let us say art deco would be legal but goth would be banned. Maybe an M-16 could be made legal by changing the style by adding mouse ears or a bunny tail. What we really need to do is ban prohibitionism!

Okay, I need some clarification on how Canadians can vote by proxy in the coming U.S. election and is it bilateral? Would a vote for Obama also be a vote for Dion? Bush is not running for anything and neither are the other guys except McCain. So is voting for Harper really the same as voting for McCain? It seems obvious a vote for Elizabeth May is a vote for Nader but what about the NDP? They are no longer pro-labour but have also become lunatic fringe environmentalists. Are they a vote for Nader too? What if I wanted to vote for the Constitution party, Libertarians, or even the Cascadia party? How would I vote then. Please expand and clarify exactly who in the U.S. corresponds to each Canadian candidate so that people can make an informed choice.

Why in the world is a "journalist" with the Canadian Broadcorping Castration (original name) attacking foreign political candidates. It is not like she will sway many Canadians to vote Democrat in the next election. The U.S. still does not allow persons of differing nationality to vote in their elections. Maybe Ms. Mallick would be more at home if they shifted the border slightly north of Toronto. It's not like the city was Canadian in most respects anyway. Sadly, these central canadian lunatic elites do get attention in the U.S. and the bad relations they create do cost Canadians dearly. I am Canadian born and raised and am neither Republican or Democrat as weren't my parents and grandparents before me. If the Democrats win then that is fine and ditto for the Republicans. Hopefully we will have good relations with either group. If living next to the U.S.A. is like sleeping beside and elephant like Trudeau said then how will the situation be helped if the mouse bites the elephant in the butt? Isn't it harder to sleep by a raging elephant?

As I recall when this thing started many years ago it was about $20 millions in bribes paid in Canada. About $300,000 has been accounted for which leaves $19,700,000 to go. That is enough "grease" to smear many parties and I think Karl will never return to Germany while he is alive.

Al Gore is a politician and not a climatologist. David Suzuki is a Biologist and not a Climatologist ( a branch of Physics). He often uses his TV star status and media access to promote fashionable causes. Perhaps his being interred during WWII has contributed to this. I'm a 'computer guy' and a practical environmentalist and want nothing to do with these lunatic fringe environmentalists that have never been accountable for the economic damage they cause. The LFE caused two recessions in the seventies and eighties and are responsible for most of the warming measured in the last half of the twentieth century. What they don't tell you is that emissions legislation of the sixties resulted in cars that burned twice as much fuel. Almost any car of the mid-seventies burned twice as much fuel as a similar model from the mid-sixties. This affected many millions of vehicles and squandered many millions of barrels of oil to heat the air. The dramatic increase in consumption caused gas prices to increase exponentially at least 18 months before OPEC did anything. When will the LFE pay for the significant harm that they have brought to millions of North Americans? P.S. There was an environmental Professor where I used to work that I like to refer to as "Cadillac Carl". He had a nice Sedan de Ville, giant GMC SUV, and a Harley Davidson. Apparently he was completely dedicated to "saving the environment" or, at least, making others do so. Is Al Gore's mansion really required to house his small family and couldn't Mr. Suzuki get by with just one house? I seem to manage with a small house, small car, cordless mower, set back thermostat, and etcetera.

Hello Army Guy from a civilian 'computer guy'. Although it is unlikely that Russia would cross Alaska there is another country that might. As I understand it the Americans now owe over a trillion dollars to the Peoples Liberation Army of mainland China. How can they repay that debt considering that most U.S. factories have moved offshore? The United states originally bought Alaska from Russia so is it not possible that they might sell it off to satisfy the huge debt. China would want to buy it because they really need the space. As I understand it their population has actually increased by 500 million in the last 25 years despite continual claims that they had the problem under control. Methinks Russia may not be our biggest worry.

Do you make arguments against a person on a regular basis? Are you skilled in Chemistry and/or Physics or otherwise use the scientific methods as described in many court documents? Your truthful answers will determine the quadrant of classification. Most historians and most lawyers do occupy the same quadrant which makes common interests irrelevant.

As an Albertan born and raised it pains me to face the truth on this matter. Mr. Chong does not seem to know much about the actual history of this country. If he did then he would realize that there is not much of a probmem here. Mr. Harper is merely confirming the special status that the French speaking people in Quebec have always had. I'm no expert but I know that many years ago the Crown agreed that Quebecers would be allowed to have their own language, religion, culture, etc. and that their laws would be based on French common law and not English like the rest of the country. The real issue is whether the government should honour past agreements and not about whether or not Quebec has special status. That boat sailed many years ago.

It has been said that there is a dichotomy between arts and science but I have observed a tetrachotmy. ................................|...uses valid arguments..|...uses invalid arguments...........| ................................-------------------------------------------------------------------------- science training.......|...chemists, physicists.....|...environmentalists, biologists...| ................................-------------------------------------------------------------------------- no science training..|...philosophers................|...lawyers, historians..................| ................................-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Communications between people in different quadrants has always been difficult but perpaps never more so than between valid with science and invalid without. Climatologists (Physicists) have been ignored by politicians (Lawyers) for years. This is how we got legislation to double the fuel consumed by cars in the mid-seventies and the two recessions that followed. The recessions were not just numbers but harmed millions of North Americans for no valid reason. What can be done to improve these communications before we shoot the economy in the head?

The Premier and the PM operate under totally different circumstances. Mr. Klien does not have to deal with the federal government's propaganda arm that has always been controlled by a certain opposition party. Who can forget the mini-series (docu-drama) on the Arrow that attacked the reputations of Mr. Diefenbaker the Progressive Conservatives and the U.S. government? Even if he is paranoid that does not mean that THEY are not out to get him because they clearly are. Maybe if he wins a majority he can finally abolish that network which should have never been created in the first place.

How odd. Which Bush is propping him, is it George W. or George senior? What I think happened was that more Canadians dislike central Canadians than dislike the U.S. Americans. Of course stopping the fuddle duddling of election results in some city ridings helped. If more of the vote were honest then the Conservatives might even get a majority. Of course.that can only happen if they keep their "ibble". That is rely"ibble", sense"ibble", cape"ibble", etc. Right now it looks like they are getting caught up in Ottawa lunacy and that sort of stupidity could make it anybodys' game.

The Liberal ads last election did establish that Mr. Harper the Conservative leader also had conservative leanings. Prior to this revelation there was no no public disclosure by the Conservatives that Mr. Harper had any conservative beliefs whatsoever. Once this "hidden agenda" had been revealed it also became clear that Mr. Harper has, on occassion expressed admiration for some U.S. conservatives as well. Some of these conservatives are Republicans and so is George Bush and George Bush. This clearly shows...um...uh...I'm not sure what it shows but if Harper also admires JFK then he might be a closet Republicrat or Dempublican. The way I see it we can either try to get along with the U.S. or kick their behinds all the way back to wherever they came from. ... Three hundred million behinds? You don't say. Well I guess that is too many so we will just have to try to get along then. What I find puzzling is how anyone who loves democracy can hate the United States. Indifferent sure, but hatred, for one of the few countries to actually promote democracy in the world. Some of my fellow Canadians really scare me when I wonder how much they hate our democracy too.

So oil made from plants pollutes less than oil which also came from plants? If the Suphur is removed why does one oil pollute less than the other. Grain does cost a lot to grow which is why biofuels make no economic sense whatsoever. Any that are currenty produced are heavily subsidised with tax dollars. For example most ethanol actually costs the taxpayer about $8 litre. Subsidising the production of these fuels will never sense. Even if oil prices were to rise by ten times and make something like ethanol from corn economically attractive there is still the problem of appearances. How does it look to a hungry person when we are putting corn into our gas tanks? Surely there must be a way to give farmers a better deal without financing the construction of an inefficient and overpriced alternative fuel industry. Based on the historical treatment of farmers what makes you think this industry will be any better than any other in the long term? T'is it now? They bank CO2 how exactly? Perhaps the sap is carbonated or do you mean they bank Carbon and not CO2? Obviously all of that Carbon does not get released into the atmosphere because that is where the oil came from in the first place. At any given time respiration + combustion (and decay) - photosynthesis = NET CO2 emissions and it is these NET emissions that are important.

Theodore Roosevelt said, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." This great man told the truth but note that he does not use the plural "ostensible governments". This automatically implies several "invisible governments" and not just one. Nevertheless I do believe that the invisible government of Germany intentionally collapsed the economy to get their figurehead, Hitler, elected. Once this was done the Nazis turned reality onto its head. They really pushed this Jewish conspiracy myth. It was strangely successful considering that there have never been even twenty million Jews in the entire world. That is something like one in 300, which is far too few to dominate anything. Of course, the Nazis were experts in repeated lies and misdirection. For example some of them accused Jews of murdering Christian babies which was never true but at the same time the Nazis were, in fact, murdering Jewish babies. It was not just Jews they were after. The Nazis had all encompassing plan. What they intended to do was implement a massive parallel genocide. They were going to prune all of the branches off the tree of humanity except the Aryan and part of the Slavic one. All Blacks, Asians, Semites and most Slavs would have been eliminated from the world. The problem for the Nazis was that there were not enough Aryans and acceptable Slavs to accomplish this right away so they managed to form alliances with their future victims. This allowed the Nazis to accomplish a great deal of their plan until the world stopped the program. Now they are starting the Jewish conspiracy myth again. Not surprising really, the Russians maintained that if every Nazi were not eliminated then Fascism would eventually grow back. Perhaps it will, but the Fascists still have the problem of taking over a couple of hundred countries to dominate the world. That won't be easy no matter how sly they are about it.

"Global warming" perhaps not. I mean how would you measure the temperature of the whole globe? Stick a thermometer up its behind, perhaps? Nevertheless, there was a significant warming measured by ground stations in North America from about '76 to '86. This was caused, almost certainly by the low-efficiency emissions controlled vehicles that started coming out for the '73 model year. The doubled fuel consumption of these horrible, gutless, gas-guzzlers produced many kilowatts of waste heat per vehicle and this was certainly measureable. Admit it, B. Max, the environmentalists caused a measurable warming.

First of all, White Doors, the environment is just too important to be left to the lunatic fringers. Carbon Dioxide is the life gas of green plants just as Oxygen is to animals. Carbon Monoxide is a poisonous and dangerous pollutant that should be minimized. Too many of these "environmentalists" do not know the difference. One thing that the LFs have completely ignored is the Carbon Dioxide that is converted back to oxygen by green plants. What has to be considered is overall CO2 production and not just the amound produced by combustion. It is unlikely that Canada produces any net CO2 and we should be selling our Oxygen credits to Japan. Another strange thing about this issue is the concept of taxing an oil producer like Saudi Arabia instead of those who burn the oil and actually produce the CO2. The Saudis do not control how the oil is used. If it is burned then it will produce CO2 but if it goes into plastic then it doesn't. The carbon credits should have to be purchased by the end user that produces the gas. On a different but similar note, why is our government subsidizing the use of food to power our vehicles? This is a monstrous concept. Millions of people are starving in this world and we are burning corn and grain in our cars and trucks. Is this really the message that we should be sending to the world?

You are so nice to give them the benefit of any doubt. I mean aren't all of us Canadians just so nice that not one would ever consider doing any such thing? This sort of thing can only happen south of the border, can't it? The only problem with that is this constitution is completely "made in Canada" and there is no doubt about what it says. There is also no large doubt that the drafters, some of which were skilled lawyers, also knew exactly what it said. They knew and they intentionally changed the clause from the more restrictive text in an earlier constitutional document. Now the "disarm the victims" gun laws have increased crime with firearms. There is no surprise there. The streets are much safer for criminals, after all. Despite this, they do not repeal the ill conceived law but have further strenghtened it. Are they really so stupid? No, methinks that they are deceptive and it is we that are being stupid.

You are right, that is what Mr. Harper said, but I am counting on it being a rhetorical statement. Maybe he could appoint Jon and I, and then reform the Senate. That way everybody will be happy. The President cannot appoint senators because the Liberals did not win. If they do at some time in the future then I think the President can make all the patronage appointments he wants to the Senate. Yes, it appears that you are indeed paying attention. I'm not exactly sure how the transfer works since I got the information from the Liberals but it is definitely a vote for Bush and not McCain. Therefore I conclude it must be some kind of term extension and not a brand new term. The final word on this, however, lies with the Liberals and not I. Whether a McCain/Rice win would mean a Canadian majority depends, I think, on the electoral college results. Of course that would depend on what the U.S. equivalent of the Liberal party says. This could be the Democrats but I'm not completely sure which party currently defines U.S. culture. Let's see if I can derive it from first principles. The Liberals say that a true Canadian must be anti-American so it follows that a true American must be anti-Canadian. Omigawd, this sounds more like the Republicans are the sole definers of U.S. culture. If this is true then Liberal must also equal Republican and a vote for Martin must also be a vote for George W. Bush. It follows from this that Republican = Liberal + Conservative - Democrat. Okay, this proves that I have had a stroke of genius or gone temporarily insane. I can't really say which is true right now because my judgement is most likely impaired. So, lets move on. As far as voting in a Canadian election, citizenship is only a theoretical requirement. In actual fact anyone can vote in a Canadian election as long as they can show some I.D. with an address. Citizenship is not required. Non-residents would need to purchase a 3rd party driver's license but even that is not too difficult. Since legions of non-North American foreigners have always voted in Candian elections it wouldn't bother me a bit if the (U.S. of) Americans voted here too. At least all of us North Americans originate on the same continent and have a similar cultural mix. That can't be said about some gang member that just got off the boat and wants to bring more of his buddies over. We are sure getting this thing figured to pieces, Eh?

Thank you geoffrey, but what would the millions of law abiding gun owners do if the government of the day actually invoked this clause? Maybe the gun registry will make more sense once we figure out what they're really up to. P.S. Even if I'm paranoid that does not mean that THEY are not out to get me.

Okay, then let's call it a tie because, except for a few typographical errors on my part, we got EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT. What is a tiny difference of a couple orders of magnitude among friends?

Wouldn't it be better to write, "Wait, let's blame the "dirty" Indians for that". As it sits this is a little ambiguous about who is using the term "dirty". Ouch, the truth hurts!

All right, I'll assume that you really want to know and are not just trying to cause trouble. If Jon were President and I was running for PM then a vote for me would be a vote for him. Only through the miracle of historical revision could I be born in the U.S. but good revisionists are easy to find. Even so, I must decline the nomination (which means that I am actually running for President). No, actually, forget it, I really don't want the job. What I want to do is relax and have a good time. Being Commander in Chief of a superpower will allow me to do neither. What I need to do is get appointed (do you hear me Mr. Harper) to the Canadian Senate. Jon could and can be the President Minister of ... naw, he is going into the Senate just like me. Now you tell me how to vote for Hillary after the election is done. What good is this information now. Also I think your comments are unfair and discriminatory. Just because her side is the other side is no reason to make fun of her. It's not like she believed anything she was saying anyway. She is an actress reading from a different script, that is all. If Hillary wins then there has to be a vote of non-confidence and Harper has to step down if he loses. If he wins then I'm pretty sure that Hillary becomes a lame duck and has to leave within two years. Until then she has to stay in Peachmen NT just like Nixon. No it is not a half term for Harper, it is an additional half term for Bush. Remember, a vote for Harper is a vote for Bush. Weren't you paying attention? Now that I have explained it all I have a headache and have to go home. Until next time remember that US spells "us" as in "we" so of course we ought to get to vote in the States.