Borg

Lots of people would like to piss on that dead guys grave - he ruined a lot of folks in the west financially. In fact I wish he would run. That supposed trudeau charm brings out the hate in a lot of folks in the west. Worst thing that happened to canada was electing him. I believe the next trudeau would dive to the bottom of the polls. Riding on daddy's shirt tail he is. Times are different today. Please .... lets get him inot the race. Borg

I am sure he considered it - but at what price - why bring trouble on board. Personally I am quite happy he cut them loose / they left. I would not want those guys at my kitchen table - unless I used plastic forks. Real silverware might just disappear. Borg

Me either. As far as I am concerned the G8 are nothing more than a good old boys club. I often wonder why we do not make them meet in Alert, or in the middle of the Sahara - prevents trouble makers from showing up. Personally I think they like the attention. Needs industry? Then perhaps the G8 will lose a few members and gain a few others. Industry is moving out to places where it is cheaper to operate. Evolution at its finest perhaps? In the end a country needs to find a way to make it's people - or perhaps i should say - allow it's people to prosper. Taxation is a major hold back in this country. Then and only then does it need to look outside the borders. Borg

No I do not. And in fact we have never qualified for subsidies - however there are many that do need them. I have no problem in the scenario going one of two ways: 1. Subsidize to protect our food source. Food is primary. 2. Subsidize until world trade organizations sort out their mess. We are under constant attack over our food policy - it is seen as unfair by the various nations who want us to buy their product. And it may very well be - but do I want to feed my family with something that has a suspect origin, a weaker herbicide or pesticide policy, or perhaps even one that makes money on a culture of slavery? We do import from nations that do this. Otherwise I believe foreign control over our food requirement will raise the price of food and /or create future havoc as we saw with the pet food fiasco. Thus I am a person who believes ag should not be a "sink or swim" scenario. Borg

With a flat tax system and a clearing house mentality that little place became one of the best business centres of the world. It once was and may still be - incredibly motivated. Profit was all that mattered. The rest of the G8 will never go that way. Borg

Wal Mart also has bancrupted many companies with their power of purchase and demands that must be met. As for testing, some of what you say is true - however inspection on imports is very insecure. CFIA is basically incapable of doing the job. In fact it is quite common for complete loads of food to enter with nothing more than a rubber stamp. Not enough people to do the job we THINK they are doing. Your comments on an icy country ring true - I like to use it as an comparison when folks talk about fuel costs. We produce and export fuel to places where the retail cost is higher. However those countries are smaller and have a far better system of transportation. It is very rare for someone in the U.K. to drive for 100 miles to get to work - yet very common in certain parts of this country. It is also very uncommon for a Euro person to have to heat a house for 6 months ofthe year. Yet we pay world price for oil despite being a major exporter. That is just the way it is. Countries buy from us for many reasons - one of the major factors is the LACK of risk. It is sometimes not the price but the quality that sells. Very often we buy from other countries simply because it provides profit. I am not an advocate of free trade because I do not see it as being free. Seems to me we are always in court over it - or under attack from various world trade organizations. No, I have not darkened the doors of a Wal Mart in many years and no one in my family will either. There is a very personal reason for that and suffice to say it cost us some big money - and closed down some serious businesses in a town we once dealt with. Their corporate culture is not friendly at all. It is their way or the highway. I watched them hurt some very fine people and laugh about it in the meeting. I would personally rather pay more than support this outfit. You do not have to feel sorry - our operation will not close down - despite my love of profit, we have some serious moral and ethical obligations to some locals who have been with us for years and continue to stay on despite offers from elsewhere. We still profit share at Christmas every year - never missed in a long time. Trust me - we will survive - and make money doing it. Borg

Never happen. The only time the "impartial" judiciary goes public is to complain about salary. Borg

I have nothing against profit - I am motivated by it - so do not mistake my writing as complaining. In fact it is simply the truth - always follow the money. Sorry you do not like my "homilies" - I simply wrote what was stated. A man I respected when he was alive and I now remember fondly as a mentor and friend. As for doing things better, we strive for that where I live, work and play. In all honesty I cannot think of any company that does not do this. Somehow I think you have missed my point. And yes, you will possibly respond that you did not. So you think it is a better way that has cost us jobs - I think it is production costs. Personally I do not think tech has been the reason for job loss - it has been the cost of production that took those jobs - plus taxation - but you are entitled - as am I - to personal opinion. Borg

I do not expect you to agree with my comments - simply telling them as I experience them. Once the system does not have the ability to feed itself - it IS at risk. I would like to think you might actually agree with that - but if not time alone will tell us as to who is correct. As I repeat - I am not a supporter of subsidies - but until it beciomes possible to earn a living in the ag world, we will see the ag community decrease in size. When others control the food source they also control pricing. Profits will demand an ever increasing price. Do we want to protect our food source or do we want to survive at the hands of others feeding us? That someone else will also control price and I doubt it will go down. In the end I believe that to be the real question. Be that as it may, I have heard and do understand the traditional self supporting theory - and in fact it is true the government and the people are tired of hearing this story. We may very well regret not supporting the ag community. Only time will tell. Borg

Yes, and no. Yes because at present the commodity pricing does not allow the farmer to make a living. No because despite buying off shore, the savings is not passed on to the consumer. Exampls of pricing on raw commodities above shows the cost received today by the farmer. Would you prefer Brazilian or Argentinian? Their disease protection and chemical as well as antibiotic protocols often do not pass the CFIA tests. I believe she is attempting to say that "in the future" pricing will rise to whatever the international conglomerates want. In that I do support her comments. Despite the fact there are subsidies I would pose this question: If it is not possible to grow what we need to eat - are you prepared to pay whatever price it takes when imported food is the only thing available? I do believe it may come to that - you may not - but are we at all prepared to risk it? Personally I am not - even though our operation is profitable - but barely. Fortunately we have other supporting business that keeps things rolling. It is a rare day we eat anything that is imported - unless we import it ourselves. Then we know where it comes from. In fact we inspect very closely and personally. The counter to that is the 100 mile diet - in other words eat nothing produced outside 100 miles of your home. Very, very difficult to do. Borg

Any old port in a storm. After all one has to put food on the table and what better way to do it than be paid by "the old guard?" Those one time cons were always fiberals at heart anyway. Perhaps that is why the party was so unsuccessful in the past. Borg

While your post makes some sense, until things change I stand by my comments. I suspect they will not change in the immediate future. China has the temdency to tell the world community to *&%$ off on a fairly regular basis. Despite my dislike of how they do things, I do respect them for this - I wish canada would do it more often. China cares little for what the world thinks of it and is quite prepared to let them know. Borg

revenge? Nope - just culling the herd of those who do not deserve to belong among us. Try spreading that philosophy in Africa or the middle east. Or perhaps China who carries out the sentence within a day of judgement being announced. Borg

Kid is dead. Father and / or brother is / are guilty. Excuses are for losers - try them - convict them on actions not philosophy and put them away. For a long, long time. Borg

To me this is a separate issue you have thrown into the fray to deflect my comment. So - bring in Euro tech and burn - create power and throw away something to the tune of approximately 50 pounds of slag for every tonne burned. As well, emissions are greatly reduced with this tech. Already in use over the pond. Initial costs are high, but eventually it is self funding or at least close to it. Borg

It seems for once we agree - unusual to say the least. Be that as it may, I would say that the human rights folks sitting on those panels are simply earning a nice dollar to navel gaze. Personally I would like to see them gone. Not a requirement and certainly a waste of money. The door to the exit is always open - those not happy here can leave - we would be better of without them. Borg

It all boils down to money. Profit for the shareholder. As the father of a friend of mine used to say - "never be a borrower from the bank - be a bank owner." The shareholder demands profit and that profit comes to the shareholder. Profit is made by cutting costs, maximizing efficiency and selling at the highest price possible. I know you know what the above is about. We all complain about high prices and buy on sales prices when we can. So in fact we support this type of circumstance. When canadian companies can compete with the new world order of "cheap" or keep more coins in their pockets through reductions in taxes, then and only then will this stop happening. Someday at this rate we will end up at the mercy of foreign interests - then it will get real expensive. Until then, we reap what we sow. Borg

Ahh yes - the "tiny additional tax". Yet another cost to be borne by the government and their financial supporters - the tax payer. And in the end it will create nothing more than a new and costly industry - I cannot wait until the next fiscal year when it is decided that even more money will be needed to support this "recycling" program. Nothing more than another make work initiative in eastern canada. Borg

Not a simple answer but it will hopefully provide some insite. While I am not a big supporter of subsidies, it is impossible today - for those agricultural industries NOT under supply management - to make a profit on a consistent basis. For this reason it is extremely common for a producer to work off-farm to support the farm. It is for this reason many European countries have guaranteed those in agriculture will make a living wage - they have seen this happen in the past and are prepared to guarantee a food source for their own people. The costs for land, equipment, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, fuel and labour have sky rocketed with no real increase in the product produced at the "coal face". Most farmers and ranchers - in fact all farmers and ranchers NOT under supply management - are price takers, not price setters. So, subsidies keep them in business. Those subsidies allow them to get past the down cycles in their specific portion of the industry. It is rare indeed to see those under supply management be big recipients of subsidies - however supply management is under attack at the international level with world trade organizations claiming it creates an unfair system. However supply management is worded such that it is for DOMESTIC consumption. Thos other countries that want to get their product into canada are claiming it creates an unfair pricing advantage for canadians in those specific sectors of agriculture. When the agricultural industry of this country fails - and it is not there yet - but there are huge numbers going down every year - we will be forced to import more food. As canada is a net exporter of many types of typical staples at this time, I can be seen as pissing into the wind - however the average age of folks in agriculture is now over 50 and there are few coming in to replace them. The cost of starting an operation when compared to the risks and rewards is very prohibitive and the average person cannot afford to even start up without external help form family - banks are loathe to finance. There is more money to be made in a clean office than in the barn so the kids leave for greener pastures (pardon the pun). One would like to think this actually produces larger and more efficient operations as consolidations take place. Not necessarily so. What it does do instead is allow vertical integration and industrial take over. That allows control of pricing and the export of jobs. Evidenced by Tyson and Cargill downsizing North American operations and increasing foreign operations - cheaper to produce the food off-shore. Then export it to canada and increase the price to increase profitability. Packers manage to control the price at the farm gate in the following manner: They buy and keep a supply of animals on hand. This is done at the lowest price possible. They do not slaughter these animals immediately. They continue to buy at the sale barn. When the price gets to where they do not want to pay any more, the simply start slaughtering their own animals. This drives the prices down and they replace their own stock pile. If the price stays down they buy from the sale barn. As the price increases they use their own animals - driving the price down yet again. Price manipulation at its finest. Causing subsidies to be needed to keep the farmer going. It keeps packer industry shareholders VERY happy as the profit is excellent. Fed cow prices are at present running in the 80 cent per pound range and hogs are in the 80 - 83 dollars PER ANIMAL range. Prices in the store have not changed, but the profitability is greater and shareholders are happy. Hog and beef are in it up to thir ears at present. Only supply management has saved dairy and poultry. At present the CCA estimates the average loss per animal to be in the neighbourhood of close to 350 - 400 dollars per fed cow. Hogs are presently losing 65 dollars per finished pig. This all reported in Ontario Farmer dated 11 December. Average cattle operations are approximately 250 head and hog operations somewhere in the 500 sow range. As our inability to feed ourselves increases due to the loss of farming operations, the cost of importing and then buying food will cause an increase in pricing. It all boils down to one question. Do we want to eat food grown on canada or do we want to import? Borg

With him one can never tell. Borg

Well, I am glad to see you support the CBC. As for open market cannot actually call you on it - however I do not support the CRTC either. Any time the feds get involved the mess gets bigger. I actually think the Tories have said something to the tune of cutting funding or maybe even axing the outfit. I figure it would be good for canada to lose this money waster. Blubber: Heard something the other day - and no I can not back it up. Argus is on the money with his comments about the Ottawa market. Yeah, I think I heard it on the internet - an afternoon announcer was chatting with one of his political pundit guys / gals - she was on the air around 1600 hours and telling the world the CBC was vital to canada. Easy to see why she was an NDP type. Borg

I know many hate links - here it is. The judge is obviously an ass of the highest degree - a wonderful reflection on not only her profession, but her education and her life. I think she needs a kick in the buttocks. Christie says it best in her closing. Borg ------------------------------------- A judge spouts poppycock about wearing a poppy in court By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD Saturday, December 15, 2007 – Page A2 I don't know much about Margaret Woolcott. An old picture in the Toronto Star from 1993, when she was sworn in as an Ontario Court judge, shows an attractive blonde with a big smile. The formal announcement a month earlier from the late and unlamented New Democratic Party government led by then-New Democrat, now-Liberal Bob Rae - well, it's not fair to say it was entirely unlamented, because I still mourn its passing, those being the days when getting a great story about government ineptitude was akin to shooting fish in a barrel -- notes that Judge Woolcott spent her legal career as an agent with the federal Department of Justice in Brampton, Ont. Google shows that her name appears often in recent years as a donor to a charity affiliated with her local Rotary Club. Nothing in that small bit of background gives a clue as to what would lead Her Honour to make the peculiar remarks she did earlier this month in a Kitchener courtroom. The story surfaced first only this month in the pages of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, but that appears to be because it took some time for the newspaper to get transcripts of the proceedings in Judge Woolcott's court on Oct. 31. According to Record reporter Brent Davis, working from the transcript, the judge was presiding over an assault with a weapon case in which Waterloo Regional Police Constable Dan Haines was testifying as a witness. In the modern fashion - wherein, thanks to politicians and TV broadcasters, Remembrance Day has become Remembrance Week or even Remembrance Weeks - the officer was wearing a poppy in the courtroom. Now in my view, he was jumping the gun by at least a week, but as I say, plenty of people do that now. And that certainly wasn't the issue as Judge Woolcott saw it. As Constable Haines was completing his evidence, the judge said, "I think that somehow I owe you something in training. I wouldn't wear my poppy to court." "Oh, okay," said Constable Haines. "Because however much - and I really probably should have said something to [defence lawyer Richard Prendiville, who was also wearing a poppy] - but however much you may think that's a totally acceptable symbol, and that it is totally neutral, that might not be entirely the case for everybody who comes to court," the judge said. "It represents a symbol of support," she continued, "and I suspect that 99.999 per cent of us happily wear it outside of the courtroom. You probably should not wear anything like that in court." Then she hinted that she was cutting the officer some slack, since it was his first time appearing before her, but said that if it happened again, she might ask him to remove the poppy. A reasonable inference from the judge's own remarks is that it may indeed be her intention, if not her practice already, to ban poppies from her courtroom. As you may imagine, once reported in the local paper on Dec. 8, the story caused a fair stink: The Royal Canadian Legion expressed dismay; protesting letters flooded the Record; the paper published a thundering editorial slamming the judge, and this week, the Record's sister paper, the Toronto Star, ran a version of the piece. The Record tried to get comment from Judge Woolcott, but failed, and duly regurgitated the standard line about how "members of the judiciary typically don't comment," and then tried the senior regional justice, who was unavailable, and finally quoted the administrative justice for the area, Judge Gary Hearn, saying the matter had been dealt with in a closed-door meeting with Waterloo Police. (The truth, of course, about Canadian judges is that while they typically don't comment on issues when it suits them, they always manage somehow to get the word out when they feel overworked, underpaid, underloved or misunderstood. Funny how that works.) Isn't that just lovely? A judge says something so profoundly offensive and so stupid that a legitimate brouhaha springs up spontaneously in a populace who hardly rile easily, and then it is all settled quietly away from prying eyes, akin to those hushed discussions that take place in chambers, what one of my friends used to sneeringly call "super-secret court." Who on Earth ever considered that the poppy was "totally neutral"? Neutral in what way? The poppy is a symbol, and if a symbol were totally neutral, presumably it would symbolize nothing, or at least nothing so interesting and important that 99.999 per cent of Canadians happily wear it, which by the judge's admission they do. The only neutrality the poppy has is that it is apolitical: It belongs to no one party, no one group, no one way of thinking. Perhaps Judge Woolcott doesn't know quite what the poppy symbolizes. She appears to think she knows. She told the officer it was "a symbol of support." Support for what, or whom? The only reasonable inference, to use that judge-ly language again, is that she believes it a symbol of support for war, perhaps particularly for the Canadian effort in Afghanistan. But it isn't, of course. The poppy symbolizes the collective remembrance of all war dead, including those 73 young Canadians who have perished in Afghanistan, which is hardly the same thing. I have spent a good part of my working life in this country's courtrooms. I have seen judges ask people to doff tuques and hats, remove buttons with political slogans, and to cover up T-shirts with same. I have never seen a judge ask someone to remove a poppy, the very symbol of those who gave their lives so that, among other democratic gifts, the justice system with all its rights and protections might flourish. Nor have I ever heard one muse aloud that this would be a fine idea. But then, as I said off the top, I don't know much about Margaret Woolcott, just all I need to know.

Heck, all you have to do to get an honourary degree is find a way to get famous and spout the socially responsible lines of the day. Awarding that type of a degree is sure to bring in more funding to the institution that gives it out. You can be sure they do not do it for the benefit of much more than their wallet. As far as I am concerned, education may make you technically knowledgeable in a subject - but it certainly doe not make you intelligent. I figure Suzi is in it for the bucks - otherwise he would not be travelling by jet and living in the lap of luxury. "Good for you folks, but not for me." So why would it matter if Baird is an educated man? He certainly is a better man by far than that dead guy from montreal who liked to wear a flower in his lapel and avoided military service during WWII. Borg

So canada is to blame? Nope - lots of others in the mix. We are miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Try China, Russia, India and their ilk if you want reductions go there and get them on board. As for Kyoto - let's keep the cash at home. As for 2 metres under - we all go there in the end. The sky is not falling. Borg

Producing electronics, rooms, etc simply creates money. Try eating that. When the price goes up there will be even more folks looking for a handout - simply to buy bread. Borg