luvacuppajoe

I wish I could share his confidence but I'm not convinced that a win against Steyn and Macleans is going to inspire anything positive. It may very well end up having the opposite effect.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding on mandatory minimums is that they were the trade off when we abolished the death sentence. My understanding on "double credit for time served" (which I don't agree with) is that while a person is in jail awaiting trial, they are still technically innocent (innocent until proven guilty) so it is the court's way of acknowledging their former innocence...or some stupid thing. Insane, but that's the way we do things. In all honesty, I'm just relieved he wasn't found guilty for manslaughter, which happens with alarming frequency even when first-degree intent is obvious. Our justice system needs a serious overhaul but the jury did the best they could with what they had and ensured that he is going away. It's also interesting that they didn't exercise their right to recommend a sentence and instead left that to the judge. I would be shocked if he got anything less than 25 years, and even at that it means he's only eligible to apply for parole at that time, it doesn't mean he'll get it. The dangerous offender designation was made for people like Pickton, I hope he gets that too.

That's a fantastic interactive site you've linked. At the 25,000 - 22,000 year point (where the Bering land bridge is introduced) clicking on the book icon brings up a great summary of the 'Milankovitch hypothesis' of warming and cooling trends through the ages. This one is worth bookmarking, thanks RW!

It should be no surprise that this very flaw you point out raises considerable doubt on their peer-review process, as John McLean explains.

Oh, that's just wrong. I bet you they've been influenced by that nasty Ed the Sock Puppet. :angry:

No. The fact that you found the conclusion from the links I provided suffices for me. Same goes for your post critiquing the conclusion and a review of the heat capacity study. If you don't like the way a webpage lays out its links, take it up with them. If you don't agree with a page owner's politics, that's up to you. If you don't agree with a peer-reviewed conclusion, submit your own review, that's what the process is for. I offered links in response to your stated inability to find any peer-reviewed studies critical of man made global warming. I never asked you like the way they were presented or even to agree with them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you do or not.

Here's 2 for you, here and here that I had no trouble locating from Marano's links. If you want the rest, I'll leave it to you to spring for the subcriptions, sign up for online access or c/p the links, depending on how interested you are.

The term "excited delirium" is a controversial one that is used primarily by medical examiners and police forces. It's not a term recognized by either the American or Canadian Medical Associations or their Physciatric counterparts. "Excited delirium was originally coined by medical researchers to describe the extreme end of a continuum of drug abuse effects such as cocaine-induced excited delirium (Ruttenber, McAnally, & WetH, 1999)." Source That's not surprising given the increased number of incidents whereby police find themselves dealing with people high on cocaine, meth, ecstacy and other popular stimulants. This article could be important if it's proven that the RCMP's recent policy change is what prompted them to more quickly (and frequently) use their tasers than what they previuosly would have. But I do have a problem if the RCMP is suggesting that a "prolonged and dangerous struggle" was an issue at YVR. There was no struggle between police and Dziekanski whatsoever before the taser was used, never mind a prolonged and dangerous one. I have a problem too in that RCMP "believed him to fit into that category" and that "someone in a full-blown excited-delirium event cannot respond to you when you try to negotiate". In this case, their "belief" may have been insufficient to accurately assess the situation and their negotiations appeared non-existant. There's a very fine line between educating police in the broader aspects of mental health and making a split-second diagnosis of more complex aspects, one of which may not even be a legitimate psyschiatric condition. They are cops and therefore need to know enough of human nature to handle people but they're not instant shrinks, nor should they be led to believe they are. An inquiry might find this new policy needs a second look.

Point taken, kengs, although we weren't all raised amid piles of cheap plastic toys. It's our good fortune at having been born into a free and prosperous society that allows our children the high standards they enjoy. See I was raised with the idea that fun meant playing hide-and-seek in the corn stalks...because we were free from hunger. Fun was pretending the oil barrel was a horse...because we were free from the cold. Fun was playing at the frog pond in summer and skating on it in winter....because we had prosperity in a little bit of land to call our own. Fun was standing in my grandpa's work boots and preteneding I was off to the big world....because we had the security of his job. Fun was watching 2 or 3 generations of family playing cards around the kitchen table or laughing around a campfire...because we had value in our roots. Fun was rolling dough around the kitchen floor while my granny baked break...because someone was home everyday to raise and love me. Fun was building huge snow forts and sledding with the neighbor kids...because, well we didn't have global warming in the 70s. That's the kind of fun I'm talking about, and those are the means by which I learned my moral teachings every day because I was free to be a child: life is meant to be enjoyed, family comes first and looks after each other, we take our responsibilities seriously, we provide for our elders and our kids, we work hard, take pride in ownership and pay respect to our past .So no, there's no rule that childhood has to be fun, you're right. It's just so much better when it is, and it doesn't have to come at the expense of someone else.

Stuff like this only helps one realize that we're fortunate in our part of the world where childhood is actually supposed to be fun, innocent and free from depravity and horror. That's not true in much of the rest of the world.

According to Utah State Code, this is how an arrest is supposed to be made: 77-7-6. Manner of making arrest. (1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when: (a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape; (B ) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or © the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape. The cop didn't place the driver under arrest when he told him to get out of the car, he simply said to get out, which the driver did. The cop walked toward his car and as he put his ticket book down on the bumper said "put your hands behind your back" and then pulled out his Taser at the same time he was turning around to face the guy. Is that what cops are doing now, pulling out their Tasers before there's any threat of violence or escape like this guy did? The driver was an idiot for walking away and being so obnoxious about the ticket, but the cop did not make an arrest according to Utah state law because he didn't inform the guy of his intentions and none of the exemption clauses fit with what we saw on the video. I don't see anything "textbook" about it. They were both in the wrong. To those who think he resisted arrest and deserved to get tased, at exactly what point in the video was he even placed under arrest, and for what? The cop has two ways of dealing with an unsigned ticket -- write on it "refuses to sign" or make an arrest. Easy way or hard way, his call. I agree with you, Drea...the idea of using the tool of communication seems to be underutilized.

Rather than give you a series of links I'll just give you Marc Morano's roundup. There should be more than enough links here for you perusal. It's good that you want peer reviewed information from the GW skeptics. I assume that you also hold the opposing views to the same standard, but I wonder what it says about the peer review process that Michael Mann's so-called Hockey Stick theory passed peer review and was included in the IPCC's 2001 report as a key finding. From there it was used as a basis of argument for countless papers on the anthropogenic view of GW. The Hockey Stick theory has since been widely discredited, in part because some have found it impossible to reproduce Mann's findings -- one of the difficulties being that he refused to disclose his data when challenged. Scientific American ranked him as one of the top 50 influential voices in science, even though he has been forced to retract some of his original data, and yet he still defends his theory. There have also been other questions raised about the IPCC peer review process in general, specifically in John McLean's article.

I think we're past the point of assigning blame and should be focusing on recommendations to ensure this doesn't have to happen again, especially in light of the coming Olympics to BC. Licia Corbella's recent column makes the recommendation that YVR install closed circuit video cameras in the arrivals lounge (where Dziekanski's mother was waiting) that show arrivals coming off the plane and through customs...similar to what they have at Calgary airport and others. If she had been able to see that he had safely arrived she wouldn't have left thinking he'd missed his plane and it's safe to assume she'd have had a far easier time in getting someone to locate him and steer him in the right direction. My understanding is that she had erroneously told him to wait by the baggage claims carrousel when he should have in fact kept moving to the arrivals lounge area. Seems like a no-brainer recommendation to me. I'm sure the various inquiries will make similar recommendations to bring YVR up to speed as an international airport.

I don't know. What's your definition of legitimate -- Al Gore and Michael Mann? Source Carter's publication record.

Go to youtube and search for Prof Bob Carter's lecture series on the data of GW. It's in 4 parts but the third addresses the question of CO2 emissions. The pace isn't what you may think it is.

Yup, step parents can be wonderful people, I have a step father myself who is everything to me. That doesn't negate the reality that a good many children (as the OP article shows) who are abused are done so at the hands of husbands and boyfriends of their mothers. The other exception to the rule is that custodial mothers often refer to their children's fathers as "sperm donors" and look at them as nothing more than a walking wallet. Plenty of women cut off contact between child and father and some don't want their kids but refuse to relinquish custody to a willing father because it means losing child support, and more importantly sometiems, control. It takes all kinds, moxie, and the world is full of them but in general terms, I think the article's contention is true. Biological fathers on the whole are less of a risk for their children.

Oh, I just have to comment on this part, this is exactly how my stepsons were raised by their mom, that they were "special" and that's exactly the word they were raised on. Consequently, the older one especially couldn't take out the garbage or scrape his plate without proudly announcing he was "special". Your use of the word "friend" is right on the mark as well, their mom was quite confident in her idea that it was preferable to be her kids' friend than their parent, saying "I don't tell my kids what to do" like a badge of honor. Believe me, it showed -- and in the end it's the kids who pay for that. I don't necessarily agree with everything else you said -- I believe the youth justice system should act as a punishment and a chance for rehabilitation and deterrence (for those who are willing to learn the lesson) but your description of the "special" child really resonates with me.

Looking at what happened in only the last 100 years is about as relevant as looking at a bucket of sand to measure the beach. It's nothing but a nice, round number. But if you consider that the last ice age began 40 million years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago, remembering that Canada and much of the US were under a few miles of ice, then we have some perspective. If you still want to look at only the last 100 years then it's worth noting that after NASA corrected its data (upon which other sources have relied in making analysis and projections) we find that the temperatures peaked at the turn of the century, dipped until a peak again in the dust bowl era of the 30s, dipped again in the 70s and rose in the 90s. Looking at it overall, the hottest years in the last century were in the 30s, not the 90s as NASA originally claimed.

I've raised (or, am raising actually) three kids and have experience in working outside the home and using childcare, working at home without childcare and being at home with them. I agree that there is no one ideal solution to all situations or individuals but for me, hands down staying home with my kids (in the preschool years especially) was the best choice. It was challenging at best, agonizing at worst, to leave my little ones with someone else for 40 hours a week. I agree with the sentiment that the quality of parenting matters more than quantity, but I would think a child would have to have some horrendous parenting for a daycare to be the superior choice at the end of the day. How bad does a parent have to be that it would be to their benefit to be raised by a daycare or a babysitter? What's interesting though is that this thread is discussing the role of mothers when the point of the OP was that children are more at risk in step and blended families where the man is not their biological father. That's a finding I can heartily agree with, as a man (or woman, for that matter) does not generally have the same emotional investment in the well being of a child who is not his own. His primary concern and motivation is going to be the mother, in the words of Chrissie Hynde, the babies just come with the scenery. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but they are the exceptions imo.

You and me both. I had one brush with the law as a minor and it did its job in setting me straight, which I think is and should remain one of the primary objective of our youth justice system. Unfortunately there are some kids for whom that doesn't work and they end up before a cop, a judge or a probation officer repeatedly, and the law should reflect that. My more recent experiences with youth and crime are having witnessed my two stepsons being escorted home by the cops a handful of times. After each incident (nothing major, but a concern to be sure) I would ask the cops what accountability the boys would face and was always told they don't have a record so "we'll just talk to them and hopefully that will be the last we see of them" wink wink. Well it never was, even the last time the older one was brought home for B & E. In all fairness to the cops I know there is some reluctance to press charges because of the futility once a case finally gets before a judge, but it seems the whole system has more or less given up on kids in trouble until their crimes escalate to violence or they reach adulthood. The older of my two stepsons is in fact now an adult and is going to court later this month for "careless use, carrying, handling, shipping, transporting, or storage of a firearm". (He's back with his mom btw, whose only real concern seems to be securing legal aid.) His attitude is that the cops are being mean to him and should just forget about it like they always have, despite us having warned him repeatedly that once he was an adult he would be in a whole new ballgame. It's overdue that the whole justice system takes youth crime more seriously and if it has to be a top-down effort then bring it on, because it leaves a lot to be desired as it is now.

A former cop speaks out, and pretty much echos what I said yesterday.

The timetable that I am quoting from is one you provided. I wondered if you'd read the entire article because at end the timeline reiterates what the author said about clearing customs so it's not a typo, it's a factual error. You can't cite shoddy journalism as a credible source and then retreat with insults when someone points out its flaws. well, I guess you can if you have nothing left to debate.

20 years ago I wasn't in diapers, I was changing them. But I wonder just how old you really are? Were you also alive during the last warming trend that the earth underwent -- the one before the last Ice Age? How about the several other warming trends prior to that? The earth has always changed, and always will (hopefully). It's what it does. "Huge" is a moot point when you look at the earth over several millennia rather than 20 years. I've still got t-shirts older than that.

American Woman -- I can't seem to get the quote function to work seamlessly so I'm bolding your statements and replying to them below. You left out the part leading up to that quote. He grabs what looks like a laptop computer and hurls it to the ground. He throws another object at a window. No one did approach him as he was doing that. That's the point. There were times when he was unapproachable. Please don't try to rewrite the article. The author simply said "no one approached him" when in fact, at two minutes into the tape, a woman did approach him while he was holding the small wooden table in his hands and continued to engage him after he let the doors close and retreated back into the room on the other side of the glass. He didn't proceed through customs. The timetable is in error. He didn't clear customs for hours. So you're saying that his great article that we should all read got it wrong? What else might it have gotten wrong? Actually if you had bothered to read the article it states that he cleared customs at 4:00 and then at 10:30 he found his luggage (with assistance) and proceeded through the second inspection and on to Immigration. As I said, it's a minor inaccuracy but one nonetheless. Evidence isn't required to back up that statement because it's not a statement of fact by any means. The article is simply raising a possiblity because we don't know the facts; the article is pointing out that this is a possiblity, yet no one is even considering it. No one even questions if there may have been extenuating circumstances. I've pointed out that one of the symptoms of nicotine withdrawl is "tightness in the chest." He was obviously breathing heavily. Nicotine withdrawl could have been a factor in his behavior and his reaction to the taser. I didn't say it was a statement of fact, I said it was a pointless insinuation . You are condemning those who have formed an opinion such as myself but think it's fine for a journalist to espouse on his possible state of mental health without providing any background information whatsoever? You can't have it both ways, and frankly I don't understand the point of even bringing it up any more than I understand the point about nicotine withdrawl. Yes, whether he was was having a panic attack, nicotine withdrawl or a psychotic break with reality could very well have contributed to his fatal reaction to the taser jolt. Judging by his rapid and shallow breathing, heavy sweating and nervous behavior, he was obviously in physical distress and there's no doubt his heart was working in overdrive. If we could see that from our limited point of view, surely the cops saw that and possibly even more from theirs. My point all along here is that the cops are trained to recognize and diffuse confrontational situations where someone is agitated and in a panic. They did not appear to do that when they fanned out around him as he stood at the desk, speaking English to him when they were told before they engaged him that he did not speak English -- we can hear more than one person say that to them on the tape. On the contrary it appears their actions ramped up the tension by the fact that the man picked up a potential weapon as they were surrounding him. People do that when they feel threatened. The cops are supposed to be professionals who have proper training in calming situations down, not escalating them further. They're also (at least I thought) trained in using a taser when the situation presents a risk of physical harm to themselves or others, which I don't believe it did but which the many inquiries will attempt to answer. You may disagree, and that's fine. Also, the author's point of that insinuation appears to be that if indeed he did have a mental illness of some kind "he needed more help than airport security could provide". What help they offered, if any, is unclear because all we can see is the security crew standing at a distance talking into their radios and waiting for the police to arrive. Perhaps if they'd located a translator... He yelled out for the cops? You speak Polish? Please tell me what he said as he was 'yelling out for the police.' He may have wanted assistance, seems to me that would be an obvious observaton/conclusion to come to, but he very well may not have seen the cops in that light. He may not have interpreted four police officers approaching him as "assistance." Just before the cops are in our view he can twice be heard yelling out "Polizia" (which I think is how it's spelled) which means Police. This has been confirmed by Polish speaking citizens who've stepped up to translate what he was saying, some of which you might have seen on the nightly news or read in the papers. The tone of his voice is rather obvious that he was glad (perhaps relieved) to see them, indicating that he thought they were there to assist him. This contradicts the author's opinion that "he did not seem to welcome assistance". Talk about nitpicking. "Marching," "walking." That has no bearing on anything. The article is about how people have tried and convicted the RCMP based on very sketchy 'evidence.' It's not about whether he "walked" or "marched." The author said "He waves his arms at the police dismissively, and marches away" and if you can find that on the video, kindly point it out to me because all I saw was him raise his arms in the air once as he put his head down and then walk over to the desk where the cop pointed to. There was no waving of arms or marching. The author is clearly injecting his own bias by using terms like dismissively and marching because that's not the impression that many of us got from viewing the footage. What I saw was compliance and walking. Talk about trying and convicting people based on sketchy 'evidence'. The fact that you chose to overlook the point of the article and instead focus and nitpick on something totally meanlingless really shows that you're not open to any line of thought other than your 'conviction.' The point of the article appears to be in the opening paragraph, "Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport was a terrible tragedy that need not have happened. But the incident has been made worse by casual assumptions and baseless accusations...". Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm merely pointing out the irony in that the point seems lost on the author himself when he goes on to do the very thing he accuses others of doing by using subjective opinion and omitting facts to suit his own POV, not to mention using erroneous information as you yourself pointed out. Yes, it is. To those who are open to what it is actually saying. To those who have already tried and convicted the RCMP I guess it wouldn't be so great since those people are what the article is about. And I have said before, and will repeat again, the RCMP don't have to take the full weight of what went on there. The airport authority can shoulder some of that as well, as can Dziekanski and probably his own mother. The RCMP might have a pristine reputation in your eyes that makes any criticism of them distasteful to you, but that would only be your own biased POV at work. C'est la vie. As I said to Riverwind, we can agree to disagree and revisit this after the inquiries are in if you like. This seems to be bordering on pointless to go much further.

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. You may feel that you would be deluding yourself by forming an opinion with the information at hand, I don't share your sentiment, so we can leave it there and revisit the issue down the road as the various inquiry recommendations roll in. Just announced today by the BC gov't is a full public inquiry with three objectivesof investigation: "the appropriate use and policies around stun guns, the actions of the RCMP, Canada Border Services, immigration officials and officials at the Vancouver Airport and recommendations on how to improve the way foreign passengers are handled when they arrive at YVR". This will be the one really worth looking at imo.