rover1

Well, cousins at best. Our headstrong 'cousin' is not above putting the boots to us if he sees advantage in it, however. Jerry J Fortin makes some interesting points, and I would not be adverse to offering help or advice along the lines he implies, but I think that it is unlikely that it will be asked for.

One problem might be the considerable resentment by NDP members, of Rae. It seems reasonable to imagine that many left leaning voters would consider voting Liberal, on a strategic basis, and with Rae as a candidate, they would be less so inclined. When such a factor is added to the still present awareness, in Ontario anyway, of his previous misdeeds, it might prove fatal for the Liberals. If, as expected, the next general election is a close run thing, the Liberals would be well advised to consider these things very carefully.

Charles Anthony makes some good points. No disrespect for the UN or UNICEF, but I have always thought that these boxes were inappropriate. It is sort of 'hijacking' a traditional event and converting it to some other(thought to be good) purpose. Let the little kids alone, and let them have their treats in peace, I say!

Here is a BBC report relating to current doings in Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5371394.stm

Rae's Ontario failures will be remembered, but he is a very good speaker, and could have a chance if he gives the impression that he is more sincerely 'Canadian' than Harper is. There is a considerable amount or resentment in NDP circles regarding his change of party, and not just in Ontario. In my view, he would gain less of the left wing vote, than any of the others, which could make him lose. On the balance of probabilities, I would guess that Ignatieff has the best chance, but I am not strong in my opinion.

I regret to say that I cannot find the study in question at the moment, but as I recall, it was not commercially sponsored, rather was by several universities. I am looking for it, and will reference it when I find it. In the meantime, here is a BBC report on similar studies. I hope this helps. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm

If I may be forgiven for commenting on forests, I do think that their inclusion in the discussion, including some reference to fires, is on topic. A few years ago, a nine year study on the Amazon Rain Forest was completed, with surprising results. It had been generally held, up to that time , that forests and rain forests in particular, formed a kind of carbon sink, which removed CO2 from the atmosphere, and injected oxygen, amounting to a net reduction of greenhouse gases. There had been severe criticism of Daniel K Ludwig and others like him, who were busy cutting down the forest for various reasons, on the basis that they were destroying this protective effect. The results of the study, done by scientists of high repute in the field, and eagerly awaited by environmentalists everywhere, showed that contrary to the popular belief, the Amazon Forest, was actually a net contributor to greenhouse gases by a small amount. This was a large disappointment, and had and has large implications in the field.

Well, I meant amongst the Canadian Public. I realise that there was a debate in Parliament.

Army Guy raises some interesting and valid points. There should indeed have been a serious debate in Canada before sending troops. It should be understood that the Afghanistan commitment was, to a degree, a trade off to keep the Americans at bay, so to speak, after our refusal to join the Iraq project, and so not much debate was allowed, or would have been taken seriously by the government. This isn't sufficient excuse, but we as Canadians have never been very good at 'holding the government's feet to the fire'. I hope that Army Guy is at least partly satisfied with the debate which seems to be going now, late in the game as it may be.

Well, yes it is a cyclical thing, but it is much more complicated than that. There are a lot of well intentioned but incorrect statements being made here. If fact Canada contributes less than 2% of greenhouse gases to the world supply. If Canada were to eliminate all CO2 emissions today, a clearly impossible task, it would make no difference to global warming now or in the future. In fact, if the whole world stopped emitting CO2 today, again clearly impossible, what is happening now, and what is scheduled to happen for the approx next 15 years would remain the same because of the heat sink properties of the world's oceans and the release of the stored heat in them. But Canada and the world cannot stop emissions by even a much lesser percentage, in part because not all emissions are man made. There is indeed respectable scientific opinion that the green house gases are mostly other than man made, but I have to say that these opinions are in the minority. Most scientists believe that man has been increasingly emitting excess CO2 since about 1790 with the advent of the industrial revolution, and that lately the concentration measured in parts per million, ppm, has reached or is reaching a critical point insofar as climate is concerned. Hence all the dire predictions and projections we have seen in the last several years. My own view, should you wonder, is that most likely man made activity has or will affect weather and climate in a negative way. Although Canada might well benefit from some of the changes, much of the rest of the world will likely suffer, to one degree or another. In other words, I agree with the majority of the scientists, on a balance of probilities basis. Knowing what the problem is, even as imprecisely as we do, and coming up with a workable solution, are two different things, however. It is accepted that in 1790 atmospheric CO2 was about 175 ppm,and that presently it is about 250 ppm. The 2001 IPCC report, which took several years to compile, and which states virtually all the accepted scientific knowledge of the subject, proposes that if stabilisation were to take place at 450 ppm, the most serious damage might be avoided, although quite a few of the dire predictions would still take place. This is a guess, of course, but it is the best guess we have. In order to achieve the 450 ppm figure by 2100, CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by over 50% of the 1990 rate. 50%+ is the most optimistic estimate, most likely it would be more, and David Suzuki thinks it is more like 80%, as do many others. Such reductions are physically impossible to achieve, and even if they were somehow achievable physically, they are clearly impossible to achieve politically. No democratic government could get elected or stay in office if they proposed the measures, let alone tried to enforce the measures necessary to come to even half the figure, owing to the extreme financial dislocation involved for all their citizens. Developing countries simply haven't the resources to enforce this sort of thing, even at a lower level. So where does Kyoto figure in all this? Well, nobody who really knows about it thinks that Kyoto will do anything, nor was it meant to. It was simply done as a compromise, 'to show the developing world that were were sincere' in the hopes that they would then cooperate. The idea was that after 2012, the whole world would then join in, and make the necessary reductions somehow. The facts are however, that after 2012 or any other time it is not going to happen, according to the best scientific knowledge we have. But the public do not understand this. Most who are aware of the present state of knowledge of this are hoping that some new, yet undiscovered, technology will save us, but if they are wrong, we shall just have to adapt. Perhaps those who think that things are not nearly as bad as imagined, will turn out to be right, let's hope so.

In my view, there is no need to characterise other posters opinions about the matter, what they state is their opinion, and it is good enough for me. My own rating would be a C or a C-. Mr Harper is a clever and a skilled politician, and has got the most or nearly the most he could out of parliament while de-emphasising some of his unpopular policies. He has indeed attended to some neglected priorities, notably the state of the armed forces, and he has made some likely unpopular declarations based, I trust, on sincerely held beliefs. He can be criticised for 'sitting on his hands' regarding other promises which could be unpopular with some of his core voters, or with those he is wishing to attract. Some of this is to be expected with a minority government, some of it is the same old story-promise much, deliver little. He appears, in my view, to be too much in bed with the Americans, Mr Bush in particular, and getting no particular benefit for it. This is not surprising. considering his long standing political policies which appear more American than Canadian. I am not entirely certain that he knows the difference between the two countries, and this is sometimes reflected in his statements and policies. His enthusiastic participation in the Afghan war, is probably not supported by the majority of the population, and brings little benefit to the Afghans or the Canadians. Canadians count for little in this conflict, and all we have to show for it up to now, several dead soldiers, tragedies for their friends and families, and sad to say, of little effect on the issue at hand, or anything else I can think of. The whole Afghan war is pointless in terms of its stated purpose, it affects terrorism little, if it ever did, and in any event is carrying on with poorly defined objectives, and little chance of success by any measure. I shall not outline the history of attempts like this in history, to bring the Afghans up to snuff, it is common knowledge. As far as slowing or stopping the drug trade are concerned, the Canadian Military have repeatedly stated that it is not their concern, and they are doing other things. I agree that the policies regarding the prosecution of the war are not Mr Harpers, but considering the Canadian deaths occurring, let alone the costs involved, he has a responsibility to the Canadian Public, even if it disappoints Mr Bush. All things considered, the Harper government, in spite of some of its good works, is having a at least somewhat negative effect on Canada, and if he were to ever achieve a majority, it would likely be considerable. The Liberals are still having their never-ending leadership discussions, and are avoiding their own responsibilities to be an effective opposition, or an opposition of any kind. I can't help thinking that there must be a plan here, but I fail to see just what it is. Will they ever choose a leader? What a mystery. The NDP, with little public support, has just sort of dropped out with occasional statements listened to by few. This is something of a surprise, with all their frequently repeated statements about matters of 'principle'. One would have thought that they would have taken the opportunity to 'fill in' where the Liberals have been absent, and ask pertinent questions and generally hold the governments feet to the fire, in a responsible way. Had they done that, they might have even got a few more votes. The NDP are missing a real bet here, they could gain a reputation of being interested in Canada, over and above the politics of it, and this would serve them well in the future. Hard times for good government.

I quite agree that the most likely scenario is a US recession in 2007 and perhaps before. I cannot say just how serious it will be, but it could be very serious and last for quite a while. The depth and seriousness are probably both related to just how much the Americans have used their increasing equity in real estate to re-finance and buy consumer items from the resulting loan, thereby increasing their mortgages. sometimes to the point of being larger than the worth of their homes. Falling prices have insured that many owe more than the salable worth of their houses as well. Some of the newer loan and mortgage schemes have encouraged borrowing in this way. The effect on Canada, of all this, is uncertain. If their recession is long enough and serious enough, it will no doubt have negative consequences here, but as many of our exports have more or less inelastic demand, and since there are some measures that the Bank of Canada can take to mitigate some of the negative, it could be small damage, amounting to a 'slow down'. We shall just have to wait and see.

Afghanistan has been the graveyard of many over the years who tried to help establish a more stable government for whatever reason. It is a considerably more complex situation than many suppose. On the balance of probabilities, the present effort will fail for one reason or another. As far as the next general election is concerned, I note that the NDP came out at 16% in the poll. Its present silence on just about everything, seems unlikely to gain it any votes. It is surprising that Mr Layton has not really pointed out weaknesses in the present government's performance, if only to get himself some needed notice, if for no other reason.

I don't much care what the Americans believe in this respect. They are entitled to their beliefs, whether I like them or not. Jerry J Fortin may be surprised to discover that much of the industrialisation he mentions came from Canada being it location for the British Empire Air Training Scheme, and supplying the Empire with the tools of war, long before the Americans came into the war. The Americans, who 'sat on their hands while we defended the world,' until the Japanese attacked them in 1941, were considered by many at the time as war profiteers, and made a great deal of money from 1939 onwards. The US did place orders in Canada, and they were filled, but so what? We were helping them, easily as much as they were helping us. If they could have got what they wanted elsewhere cheaper, they would have done so. We owe them no special gratitude, it was business as usual for them, and for us, even though a war was going on.

It was the parents many here were critical of, not directly the youth, wasn't it?

Well, there is nothing wrong with a good celebration, but I think that Argus makes some good points. Much of the 'style' of what is recommended seems to me American in nature. Canadians have not done it this way, and I for one appreciate a quieter expression of love for one's country. It has always seemed to me that typical American patriotic exercises were loud, immodest, and often did not reflect the facts.

It is gratifying to find some of these- I had thought- long lost sentiments still around. Maybe there is hope for us yet!

Hugo Chavez is a harmless fool. Let him alone, he is amusing. It is true that he has some domestic problems which will likely lead to his undoing, but the people of Venezuela will deal with that.

The Chief Justice is the successor to the GG, should there be no Governor General for some reason. Most likely, should there be no MPs of the ruling party available, the Queen or the CG would call upon a senator to form a government. To date, we have had several senators as Prime Ministers. If there were no senators available, the Queen would likely call upon a privy counsellor, of which there are many. If somehow none of any of these were available, the Queen would rule directly,and likely call an election as soon as possible to elect those from which she could appoint a Prime Minister.

Immigration Policy deserves a good and thoughtful discussion, and in my view, there are many things which could be changed. Having said that, Immigration Policy changes or improvements are not likely to answer perceived terrorism concerns, it is a much more complicated problem than that. Caucasians ought not to be contrasted to Muslims. The majority, or at least a very substantial part of the Muslim community ARE Caucasians.

E L/R: 0.38 SL/A: -1.69 In other words, almost exactly on centre, but very slightly Libertarian.

It is impossible, in our system to really fix election dates, and you can be certain that if an issue that seemed to require an early election, likely to favour the government came up, an exception would be made. Furthermore, it is not particularly, a good idea. It is true, whatever the circumstance, the opposition could force an election, regardless of what the government desired. Such an election, would usually be forced in regard to an 'issue' which the opposition judged to be sufficiently offensive to the voters, to ensure their victory over the government. In such a case, if the opposition were correct in their assessment, they would win, and it is doubtful that many would vote against them simply because they forced an election. Of course, if the opposition were wrong, and the issue were not an important one, they would be defeated, and many would say it was because they forced an election, and the people didn't want that. That would be an incorrect assessment. It is impossible for the house of commons to effect a change in the Senate, to make it elected, or anything else. That is not the way the system works, it is a constitutional matter, and not up to them. It would be a bad idea in any case.

According to a Globe and Mail report the US Marines committed an atrocity upon several Iraqi civilians including women and children. American officials have stated that the event amounted to 'cold blooded murder' and a top Marine general has been sent to Iraq to investigate the matter.

As opposed from the religious zealots who already have and used nukes?? Such as?? I don't think WWII USA could be considered religious zealots. It's nearly common sense that the atomic bombs in WWII saved more lives from a drawn out conflict then they cost. Never the less, GWB has world presure and a lot to lose if he ever went into a religious barnstorming of the middle-east with nuclear weapons. Any western countries blocking US trade would most certainly cause a revolution back in the US, and no doubt the likes of France and Germany would instantly set embargoes. That's the difference, democracy and wealth and power limit the power that a leader can wield. The most powerful leaders are those of poor nations, such as Iran, where the population relies on the leader for their survival. In the US, GWB relies on the populations content with him for his survival. Big difference, democracy and wealth has a regulating effect on the ability of a leader to execute irrational foreign policy. I'm not all that certain that democracy and wealth have a sufficient regulating effect to make a difference. It seems to me, that people like, say, President Bush, merely have to tell a good story, to do more or less what ever they wish. They do have to account for themselves, after the fact, but unless they are really stupid, they can do as they wish.

It should be noted that some countries and regions have higher fertility rates than other, that is they produce more surplus population per year. It makes good sense to encourage control measures in such countries or regions, in preference to low fertility areas which are often in a net population loss position to begin with. As for war as a control method, it could be effective if conducted on a large enough scale, and with sufficient frequency to have a lasting effect. Fortunately, many of the high fertility countries and regions seem well disposed to the use of this method, but at the same time are lacking in up to date technology. Here is where some of the high-tech low fertility countries and regions could be of real assistance by supplying up to date means and methods. as well as infrastructure. Some work has been done, and is being done, in this area but coordinated action is required.