Keepitsimple

Every now and then, the Star surprises me......here is today's Toronto Star Editorial. Link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/224596

If you're interested, there's a thread underway with some good information on this subject under Moral and Religious Issues: Link: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9236

It goes on and on in Toronto. Year after year, the faces of murderers and their victims are primarily black - even though the Black community represents a relatively small minority. And with the publicity surrounding most deaths, the absence of grieving fathers is evident to all. As is the all too frequent references to "father of 5" and "father of 7". With several recent shootings, there has again been a call for inquests, reviews, studies and government action.....but no one dares to face the real problem: Following is a sermon from Pastor Don Meredith, a Black Toronto preacher who is also president of the GTA faith alliance. I regret that the original source story (which dates to 2005, the "summer of the gun") is no longer available on the internet but I was so moved with his sincerity that I saved it.

The weather was so so cold yesterday that several Liberals were spotted on Parliament Hill with hands in their OWN pockets!

There is a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about GW, the only naysayers are the paid so-called experts who challenge their positions. People are made to believe that there is an actual debate out there between the scientific community when there isn't. The only debate is between lobbyists who work for the oil companies and the scientific community. Not ONE peer-reviewed scientific journal has contradicted the findings of GW. Unanimous Consensus sounds pretty formidible - except that it's misleading if not impossible. The process of arriving at a consensus does not mean that everyone agrees - it means that a majority agree with most of what is being considered - which brings us to the point that if there are 2500 scientists on the Payroll of the IPCC, there have got to be at least a small minority that do not agree and another group that partially agree - we'll never know how exactly they arrived at this "consensus". My understanding is that there is almost total agreement that Climate Change is occurring (duh!) but there had to be a lot of arm twisting to reach a consensus that humans are mainly responsible. Here's a definition from Wikipedia: Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_dec...ision-making.3F

If you are referring to Maxime Bernier - I also had a great deal of trouble understanding him when the Conservatives came to power. But it did my heart good to hear him a couple of months ago - wow, what an improvement.....Dion is also somewhat better and I'm sure he will also continue to make improvements. No offense to Mr. Dion, but it will take a long longer to be "quick on his feet" in English. But hey, we'll see what happens.

Proof comes in many forms, the most damning of which is the reality that we accomplished almost nothing. Given that, I believe you might find this article from The Star to be quite supportive of the accusation that Chretien had no intention of meeting the targets: OTTAWA–Eddie Goldenberg, one of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's top aides, says the

Here's a "Letter to the Editor" that appeared in this morning's Star: Unmarried soldiers haven't been forgotten Re: No death benefit for single soldier June 4 This story about the $250,000 (now $255,000) death benefit available to married soldiers gives only part of the picture. All Canadian Forces members have the Supplementary Death Benefit (two years' salary), which goes to whomever they designate. In addition, members can purchase group life insurance. If Cpl. Matthew Dinning had nominated either parent as a beneficiary, that person would get about $90,000 tax free from the Supplementary Death Benefit, plus the life insurance, if he had enrolled. Mark Collins, Ottawa

The CBC has quite a few conservative commentators if you actually watch the channel. As for Harper's broker role, it doesn't look like he is making much headway. Watch it most every day. The closest they come as far as "regulars" is Greg Weston of Sun Media and he is actually the Sun's contrarian - usually he's pragmatic and is not overtly partisan - the rest of them toe the CBC line and support the softballs that are lobbed by Don Newman.

I watched CBC Newsworld today where Susan Bonner was filling in for Don Newman. They had their panel on political leadership and they were addressing how Harper was doing on the environment at the G8. The two main players are Rick Anderson and Robin Sears. To my surprise - remember, this is the CBC - Rick Anderson was praising how Harper has managed to set the table to serve a constructive role as an honest broker. Rick said Harper really had no choice but to come clean and admit that Canada had done nothing and that Canada was now constructively working to set things right. Anyway, I'll spare the details - it was just pleasant to see someone - anyone - on CBC taking a positive view.

This seems a perfect example of how we confuse discrimination with equality and lose sight of common sense. Let's just say we took the "non-discriminatory" way and gave everybody 250K. Does it make sense and does it sound fair and reasonable that a widowed mother with 4 kids gets 250K to struggle through life while a single person's 70 year old parents (for example) get a windfall of 250K? What purpose does that serve? It may sound like "equality" to some but to me, it clearly "discriminates" against the widowed mother. It all seems to come back to an attitude of "entitlement" and "what about me".

And me......

This thread is starting to take a direction that misses the point. I originally posted this subject - with a graph prepared by the IPCC - that showed that little or no progress has been made by the European countries since 1997. The proof is in the pudding - almost all their "reductions" came prior to actually signing on to Kyoto. If that amounts to a conspiracy in some people's minds, so be it. I suppose one could say it was good politics. My main point is that we should abandon the base year of 1990 - whatever the reasons for selecting it in the first place - it serves no purpose today except to give false credit to the European Union. The real issue is where do we all go from here - and that's all of us - the US, India, China.

People should understand that Cities fall under the juristiction of the Provinces, according to the Constitution. Harper and the Conservatives have always maintained that they believe in the Constitution and respect the Provinces' domain. If money is to flow from Ottawa, it should flow through the provinces. Over and above the fact that the Conservatives respect the Constitution, it makes a good deal of senses bacause it's more than just Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal - there are many, many cities with populations over 50,000 and the Provinces are the ones who are best positioned to dole out the money - some originating from Provincial taxpayers and some from the Feds.

The Europeans have accomplished almost nothing since 1997. Check out this graph from the IPCC – actually the UNFCCC but it’s the same organization. Graph: http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image...grahp2_2006.gif Kyoto was signed in 1997 but the clever Europeans chose 1990 as their "base" year to calculate whether their emissions were going up or going down. Many of us already know that this year was not pulled out of a hat - it was chosen so that Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism, the closing of many state-run "dirty" factories and the rapid conversion from coal to gas that was already in progress. The Europeans were giving themselves a head start with decisions that had already been made outside of Kyoto. To give themselves even more of an advantage, they grouped 15 countries together, calling it the EU15 and established one target for the bunch of them. This meant that the majority of them could ride on the coat tails of these same pre-Kyoto advantages. So then really, what have these countries accomplished since they actually signed Kyoto in 1997? The answer is next to nothing. Canada was hoodwinked. In the next round of Kyoto talks, lets stop the games with the self-serving use of 1990 - it's what we do from now on that matters. Here's the Homepage from where the graph originated: http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php

Not a bad idea. I'm sure I can snag some calls that cross my property. I guess I can just deduct it from my phone bill.

O'Connor is simply guilty of being a bad politician. I read in one of the papers that he still acts like a General - he gives orders and naively thinks that they will be followed to the letter. He doesn't have the political instincts to double-check everything before he opens his mouth. He's an honourable guy who obviously cares deeply about every aspect of the military - he's just not cut out for politics.

I don't think anyone has suggested they are except for motivation. The problem is that when you're playing defence you require an awful lot more of everything, including troops, weapons and discipline, than then guys playing offense. The Defence side has to protect all its assets - which is basically, when dealing with terrorists - everything, military and civilian, from govt buildings, to schools, to buses and markets. The attacking side lives in caves, picks one spot where it can attack, and overwhelm local opposition, and then get away. That's why they always have the advantage. Based on the performance of the Taliban thus far they aren't exactly made up of elite fighting units. Almost all casualties NATO has suffered have come from IEDs and suicide bombers. The government's main problem is lack of loyalty among its troops. As in Iraq, most have their primary loyalty elsewhere, to their tribe or warlord. Lacking NATO troops Karzai would probably wind up being kicked out by one warlord or another, and then alliances would fracture, the warlords would start fighting each other, and the Taliban would be able to move into the resulting vacuum. Why? Because unlike the warlords they have outside support in terms of weapons, money and organization, and unlike the warlords and tribal elders, have no tendency to negotiate, surrender or compromise, or tire of the fighting and its affects on the population at large - because they're doing God's work. Well said Argus. I think you've concisely sized up the situation better than anything I've read.....and it's what makes this kind of terrorism/insurgency/fanaticism/religious zeolotry (call it whatever you want) so insidious.

Media articles have almost always maintained that Kyoto targets must be met by 2012 or Canada would be in violation of the Treaty - this is misleading. The Kyoto Protocol actually says that "By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an AVERAGE of 5% below their 1990 levels". In Canada's case, we have to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions by about a third starting NEXT YEAR and maintain that level right through to 2012. This "averaging" concept means that if we exceed our targets in 2008 and 2009, we 'll have to cut even more to make up for it in 2010 and 2011. As a further example, if we cut our emissions by 5% in 2008, 10% in 2009, 20% in 2010, 25% in 2011 and 30% in 2012 - that will average out to 18% for the 5 year period - far, far below our target. Here's an excerpt and a link to the full Globe & Mail article. To support the article, I've also included some information from Wikipedia. From the Globe & Mail: Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in April of 1998, committing the country to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions to an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the years 2008 to 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...on0201/BNStory/ From Wickipedia: By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

The Helmut Oberlander case is a perfect example of how hard it is to remove someone from Canada. This posting asks "why now?". But in fact, proceedings against Mr. Oberlander to strip him of his Canadian citizenship started in 1995. This was finally accomplished in 2000 but was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court of appeal in 2004. Now he's been stripped again. Whether the case against Mr. Oberlander has merit or not, it should not take 12 years to boot someone out. Proceedings against Jacob Fast were commenced in 1999. For those who might be inclined to relate these stories to "mean spirited" Conservatives, keep in mind that these cases were pursued by Liberal governments, for the most part.

NO. No no no no no. We have not, and we must not. (And was a condescending notion anyway.) Keepitsimple, you said this material discussed what is being accomplished in Afghanistan, but I don't see that information. I did not say that. I simply said that Rosie was one of the few journalists who actually listen to the soldiers - the front-line men and women who actually see what is going on. And over and over, you hear soldiers say that they believe in their mission and that they see the improvement that they are helping to make happen - and that's in the very worst part of Afghanistan - our media only seems to report on the bad things. I wish they would spend more time explaining the tremendous things that other countries are doing all the other provinces in Afghanistan - because to a large degree, Canada, along with the US, Dutch and British, is helping with all that redevelopment by holding back the Taliban. Here we are, thousands of miles away, sitting smugly in our living rooms - arrogantly thinking that we have all the answers: 1) The NDP - get out right away and go to Darfur as peacekeepers - even though we're not wanted. 2) The Liberals - tell NATO right now that we are not going to be in the South after Feb 2009 - find somebody else. We want more of the easy stuff. We've done our job - somebody else should step in becuase we are not going to carry on - end of story. We don't even want to have a PLAN for after Feb 2009 because we won't be there.

It's always best if posters supply a link to the actual story so that the Harper-bashers don't start frothing at the mouth. Now they're all going to need rabies shots thanks to Figleaf. Here's snippets of what MacKay said: Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070527/cana...to_14&printer=1

Rosie DiManno has been writing some excellent columns on Afghanistan for the Toronto Star. She's embedded with our soldiers and is one of the few journalists who is listening to our soldiers. Here's just a few extracts so I don't contravene copyright rules - but I encourage people to read the entire article. Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/218349

AG - thanks. Finally some common sense. I'd appreciate if you could publish snippets from this article as a new topic - people need to understand the realities of "Peacekeeping". I'd do it myself but I don't want to steal your thunder.

As usual with these polls, it's all in how you ask the question.....and as someone has already pointed out, Canadians in general know nothing about Darfur - I'll bet 90% would not know what country Darfur was in. In any event, it would be enlightening to know what "taking the lead" actually means. After all, as the article says, the UN wants to put 20,000 peace-keepers in Darfur (Sudan) but their government does not want them there. So what does "taking the lead" mean. Does it mean the UN is incompetent and Canada should tell Sudan: "We don't care if you don't want us there - we're coming"? To people who know nothing of Darfur, why wouldn't they answer "yes" to end 4 years of carnage? By the way, this polll was sponsored by the Mosaic Institute. Who? you say. They are a very new "Think Tank" that has caught the eye of the Toronto Star. I'm not trying to be overly critical but wouldn't it be a good idea for rookie Think Tanks to earn their stripes for a few years before they get national exposure. In an article by Carol Goar of the Star, she mentions that the Institute is not even scheduled for formal launch until this fall. I guess the Star couldn't resist taking another swipe at Harper. Link to Star article on Mosaic: http://www.mosaicinstitute.ca/pdf/Globaliz...Canadianway.pdf Link to Mosaic Institute: http://www.mosaicinstitute.ca/index.html